Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sex symbols


 * 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 of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --F a ng Aili 說嗎? 23:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

List of sex symbols
This page is just the opinions of the users editing it and cannot be verified in most cases. OrangutanCurse 02:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of objective criteria for inclusion. "A subjective list"? What?  Wikipedia's an encyclopedia; it doesn't have a personal opinion on who is sexually attractive. - AdelaMa e  (talk - contribs) 03:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The idea behind the list is legitimate.  Objective criteria can be given, e.g. "explicitly described as a sex symbol in major media".  However, the current list is unverifiable.  Very few references, and none linked with names.   dbtfz talk 03:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per dbtfz, and cut down significantly until referenced. Probably should be renamed to something like List of people who have been cited as sex symbols for NPOV purposes, something along the lines of Films considered the worst ever. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 04:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete current version and start over using the format set out by Dbtfz - verifiable names only. I'm unconvinced this list is necessary as a category already exists. 23skidoo
 * Delete inherently POV - and even if referenced, does the fact that one (or even three) journalist once called someone a 'sex symbol' make them one? Or would the references show that someone was widely regarded as such? That's impossible to reference. Give some examples in the article Sex symbols and leave it at that. -Doc ask?  12:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep because this list is very useful for me to locate celebrities in order to work on their articles. This list is popular and is good-natured.  GilliamJF 18:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * ? So try the lists of actors/singers etc - no reason to keep this. --Doc ask?  18:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete However, if we're going to excise this, we should do so with similar subjectivities such as gay icon. Fishhead64 19:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep There's nothing objectionable in the existence of this list; I might not find lists wieldy or especially useful, but that's not to say that others don't. If people don't like what a page says don't read it again; or edit it within reasonable bounds. But don't launch deletion campaigns because one's subjective opinion disputes that of another over who or what is sexually attractive. With respect to referencing, that belongs appropriately in the articles on the subjects themselves where necessary, and not in this (or indeed another) list. The hyperlink is the reference (or has the way the Web works suddenly changed and no-one told me?) ajf 20:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * keep -will become an interesting list as wikipedia agesSpencerk 21:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no way this can be anything other than original research, or POV &rArr;    SWAT Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  21:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete (or userfy). It'd still just be listcruft even if clear standards could be established, which they can't. --Trovatore 22:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I'm torn like an extra in a Godzilla film. I like the article on a personal level.  But if I look at if it qualifies...I'm not so certain.  It is entirely subjective.  : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 23:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Doc and Trovatore. &mdash;Veyklevar 12:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a badly-defined list with completely subjective grounds for inclusion, i.e. listcruft. Stifle (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Stifle. T  e  k  e  07:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Listcruft. Delete, unless completely reworked as per dbtfz. - Mike Rosoft 21:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, however I feel this list should be severely cut down to only include the most famous sex symbols, instead of being cluttered with tons of also-rans. PatrickJ83 00:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article needs clean-up, oh yes, but if specific criteria could be given this would be a useful article. Sorry Guy 01:08, 23 April 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.