Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FHM lists


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was DELETE. -Doc 11:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

FHM lists

 * FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 1995 was nominated for deletion on 2005-08-01. The result of the discussion was "keep".  For the prior discussion, see Articles for deletion/FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 1995.
 * All of these lists were bulk nominated for deletion on 2006-04-19. The result of the discussion was "keep".  For the prior discussion, see Articles for deletion/FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 1995 (2nd).

These are copyrighted lists by a single publisher, and there's a growing consensus on Wikipedia that it is a copyright violation for us to replicate as bare content (forgive the pun). If deleted, they can be linked from the FHM article without violation. -- nae'blis 22:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Here's some prior discussions of deleted copyrighted lists: Top_100_U.S._thoroughbred_champions_of_the_20th_Century, 100 best movies of the cinema of Mexico, The 100 Greatest Marvels of All Time, Guitar World's 100 greatest guitar solos, Bravo's 100 Funniest Movies, and before that several lists from Blender magazine. There is an archive of some discussion on the copyright/legality of the FHM lists, which deadlocked at Village Pump and Copyright problems in April and May, here. -- nae'blis 00:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Pages in category "FHM lists"
 * FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 1995
 * FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 1996
 * FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 1997
 * FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 1998
 * FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 1999
 * FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 2000
 * FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 2001
 * FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 2002
 * FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 2003
 * FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 2004
 * FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 2005
 * FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 2006
 * FHM-U.S.'s 100 Sexiest Women 2000
 * FHM-U.S.'s 100 Sexiest Women 2001
 * FHM-U.S.'s 100 Sexiest Women 2002
 * FHM-U.S.'s 100 Sexiest Women 2003
 * FHM-U.S.'s 100 Sexiest Women 2004
 * FHM-U.S.'s 100 Sexiest Women 2005
 * FHM-U.S.'s 100 Sexiest Women 2006
 * Also, FHM Sexiest Women and Category:FHM_lists would be fallout from a deletion decision, but I'm not sure whether to run them separately/concurrently, or afterward as a slamdunk.


 * Delete every last one. BoojiBoy 23:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is cruft of little worth, but I wouldn't vote delete for that reason, based on stare decisis of the previous discussions. But its copyvio and so must go. Herostratus 00:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete the 95 one as it is a copyvio, it's editorial opinion rather then a reader poll. Weak Keep the rest, the results have been refrenced and mentioned in many other media, a bit crufty I must admit so only a weak keep from me. -- E ivindt@c 00:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Also someone will have to delete the list in the 'sexy women's' article. --Ageo020 01:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all as unencyclopedic and wikipedia is not a primary source. -- Koffieyahoo 02:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Has it been a month already? Well, at least this time we're having an actual vote. As always, keep. To answer the specific issues, this is not copyrightable information - a magazine cannot copyright the results of a poll even if it conducted the poll. This list is no more copyrightable than a list of Academy Award winners. The list is not compiled by editorial opinion, it's a poll of the readers' votes. This information is encyclopediac - if you think otherwise, give me an definition of what you think "unencyclopedic" means and I'll show you a hundred other articles that meet it. And if your sexual issues are so extreme that you consider a list of women's names offensive, I recommend you see a therapist. Sorry if my response seems flippant, but all of these issues have already been repeatedly raised and discussed. Based on history, the next stage will be somebody's decision that these articles are so wrong that they need to be speedily deleted by unilateral fiat. MK2 03:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment easy now. It is unencyclopedic as it essentially a copy of a primary source and and encyclopedia is by definition not a primary source. You can change it into a secondary or tertiary source by adding additional information on the persons in the list. However, the subject of each of the lists makes it impossible to add such information, as it was not published in FHM or a definite copyright violation. -- Koffieyahoo 05:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It can also be changed by including discussion of the lists in the articles. In the previous AFD discussion, several sources for such discussion were given.  Your argument appears to be that this is encyclopaedic if there is scope to expand it beyond the simple list data.  Per the citations in the previous AFD discussion, that appears to be the case. Uncle G 13:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. However, looking at the provided citations, I'm not seeing those go beyond: "This is the new top ten" and "these people aren't" in the list anymore. The first is void, as it is covered by the lists themselves. The second can only applies to very few of the people in the list, which would make for very flimsy, never beyond quite stubby, articles, which makes it sound much more attractive to add that info to the articles of the respective people. -- Koffieyahoo 02:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thinking about this a bit more: what about ditching these articles in favour of one article for each of the editions of FHM presenting such a list? Filling these articles with a sourced discussion of the lists, criticism, changes, etc? -- Koffieyahoo 03:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all Articles of these lists as long as they remain simple lists. The lists, in there current unannotanted states, provide no annotation, added value, or description of the bacground or impact of these "Sexiest Women" lists.  I must further note that I make decision as to FHM Sexiest Women or Category:FHM_lists because those are outside the jurisdiction of Articles for Deletion, and must be handles by TfD and CfD respectively.-- danntm T C 03:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Scope for expanding these lists, such as the reaction to Britney Spears disappearing from the list, was given in the prior AFD discussion. From what you write, you want the articles to be expanded beyond mere lists.  So expand them!  Deletion is not the way to do that.  AFD is not cleanup.  Nor is it Requests for expansion. AFD in fact prevents the very expansion that you want to happen. Uncle G 13:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My concern is that any article should be more in the vein of the articles about the Rolling Stone magazine lists, as noted by nae'blis below, instead of simple regurgitations of the lists. I, personally. do not care to rework these lists because they are not my area of interest, but if another editor is willing to fix the articles, more power to them.  I would certainly support an article on the FHM list along the lines of the Rolling Stone lists.-- danntm T C 16:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete all for the valid reasons explained above. Eusebeus 04:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:NPS. If the primary source material is removed, there's nothing left. This is inappropriate content, and no amount of editing will resolve that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please note that The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, The 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time and The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time (famous and long-standing list/articles from Rolling Stone magazine) have now removed the lists themselves and gone to a commentary-based model. -- nae'blis 15:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I say these articles are a good example of why the FHM lists should remain as they are. Wikipedia is supposed to be a useful reference site. So if somebody is looking for information about the FHM sexiest women polls, what are they going to be looking for? The list of names and the rank they were in. Wikipedia has that information and the reader will get the information he or she wants. Now suppose somebody is looking for information about the Rolling Stones list of greatest songs. Does anybody think they want to read a commentary about the list? Of course not. They're going to see the wikipedia article on this subject is useless and go look somewhere else for real information. We have to remember that this site was not built for those of us who are contributors; it was built for users and our job is to provide information people will be looking for in an accessible manner.MK2 02:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We are a useful reference site; that doesn't mean we're supposed to a) copy the Internet/sum of all human knowledge, or b) infringe on anyone else's copyright. Even if we do/did get permission to replicate FHM's lists, they just become vandal magnets for people wanting to switch the list, and without images or annotation, there's no value added over having the list linked. I'm all for mentioning notable placements on these lists in the articles for these women, as it's easier to keep an eye on there. -- nae'blis 15:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all as primary sources, copyvios, listcruft, etc. Stifle (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete all as copyvios. For full disclosure: I nominated a bunch (maybe all) of these on the April 2006 go-round. Carlossuarez46 07:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry, copyvio as above, gotta go. &mdash; MrDolomite | Talk 16:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What's annoying is that several people are claiming they're voting to delete because this is a copyright violation. So let me repeat - this is not a copyright violation, you cannot copyright a compilation of facts. This is a list of women's names ranked in the numerical order that they received votes in a survey - it is a factual list and cannot be copyrighted by FHM or any other entity. It would be like the Motion Picture Academy claiming that they had a copyright on the fact that Crash won the Best Picture Award in 2005 - once they release that information it's public knowledge. FHM can copyright the text they wrote with their published articles and can copyright the choice of pictures they used as these are editorial content that was added to the factual listing. But none of this editorial content was included in the Wikipedia articles. (I will concede that the 1995 list was created by editorial decision and not as a result of a survey; therefore it may be copyrighted.)MK2 06:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Remember: this is not so much a vote as a discussion. The closing administrator isn't supposed to just count votes, he/she is supposed to read the suggestions and make a decision based on those suggestions. -- Koffieyahoo 07:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the principle of consensus decision - I just feel that it should be bound with the limits of the facts. If people were voting to eliminate the article on Millard Fillmore because he was a relatively unimportant President, I'd argue against that decision but I would accept it if that was the way the consensus went. But if people were saying they were voting to eliminate Fillmore's article because he was a fictional character, I don't care what the consensus is, those people are simply wrong. If you start ignoring the facts and treating your opinions as if they were reality, you'll just end up invading Iraq. MK2 16:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.