Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sex symbols (3rd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  22:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

List of sex symbols
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This list was deleted in 2006, together with Category:Sex symbols as pointless. It was sneakily recreated in article "Sex symbol", obviously for want of encyclopedic text therein, and not it suddenly popped up after recent page moves. The list is completely subjective: for every starlet there is a promoter who declares her next grand supersex symbol in all possible media. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  20:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:CWW -- material from the list article was copied/split to the new article at so attribution history is problematic here. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment it can be debated whether this is listcruft or an indiscriminate collection of info, but I don't see how it is subjective when the sources used are for talking about someone has been deemed sexy/a sex symbol. None of them as far as I know even suggest they are the "next grand supersex symbol in all possible media". Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Undecided. If kept, massive pruning would be needed. Just some random mention as a sex symbol shouldn't be enough. They should be considered among the most devastating hotties of all time. And therein lies the problem. Where's the boundary? Definitely this side of the Michael Jacksons, Steven Colberts and Lady Gagas, but how far over? Katherine Heigl's good looking, but is she a sex symbol? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The boundary is outlined at Stand-alone lists: The person should be included if s/he meets Notability (people) and if a reliable source establishes his/her membership in this group. Cunard (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if it is a single personal opinion without any arguments beyond "look at her big boobs"? - üser:Altenmann >t 16:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I personally think it's better suited to a category than a list – but in light of the overwhelming 2006 consensus to delete both, and the absence of any change in circumstances since that consensus, I defer to that case and simply leave it at delete. Aspirex (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete People like Rudolph Valentino, Gina Lollobrigida, Marilyn Monroe or Johnny Weissmüller were of course sex symbols of their time, but Woody Allen? Kristen Wiig? Everyone can be named as a sex symbol based on some random article, but it doesn't mean anything. This list is subjective and uncontrollable, a random list of celebraties and I don't see how it could be improved. Besides, it's not much informational. --Ukas (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as inclusion is too subjective and arguable, so without clear context WP:List is missed. Atlantic306 (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Joe Biden as a sex symbol? This has POV/subjective written all over it.  It was previously deleted and the same reasons then still holds true. Bgwhite (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I made the split of the page Sex Symbol leaving the rump as List of sex symbols since any decent encyclopaedia should have an article covering the subject (history, different cultures, impact on teen-culture fashion etc.) but I think the list is useless. What worries me is that if the list is deleted the new topic page will be flooded with the latest subject of media gossip. Of course this doesn't warrant keeping the list but I'd welcome input on the subject page to prevent it dropping back into list form. Btljs (talk) 08:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources. The subject passes Notability, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "sex symbols" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources". Sources    <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li> The book notes: "This list of blonde sex symbols is not exhaustive, but it must include Jean Harlow, Jayne Mansfield, Lana Turner, Mae West, Marlene Dietrich, Marilyn Monroe (who once said, 'I like to feel blonde all over'), Brigitte Bardot, Doris Day, Goldie Hawn, Grace Kelly, Ursula Andress, Bo Derek, Dolly Parton and Madonna. Models have included Cheryl Tiegs, Christie Brinkley and Twiggy; actresses include Farrah Fawcett, Loni Anderson, Suzanne, Somers, Linda Evans, Morgan Fairchild, Cybill Shepherd, Cheryl Ladd, Michelle Pfeiffer and Kim Bassinger. ... Male sex symbols on the other hand have tended to be 'tall, dark, and handsome': Clark Gable, Humphrey Bogart, Cary Grant, and perhaps Elvis Presley and Marcello Mastroianni in the sixties and seventies; and more recently Burt Reynolds, Erik Estrada, Tom Selleck, Tom Cruise, Kevin Costner and Keanau Reeves. The only blonde sex symbols that spring to mind are Robert Redford, Patrick Swayze and Nick Nolte, and perhaps Rod Stewart and Sting."</li> <li> The magazine lists sex symbols from '40s to '00s: "'40s: Billy Eckstine '50s: Harry Belafonte and Dorothy Dandridge '60s: Marvin Gaye and Lola Falana '70s: Jayne Kennedy, Billy Dee Williams, and Pam Grier  '80s: Philip Michael Thomas and Janet Jackson  '90s: Denzel Washington, Halle Berry, and LL Cool J  '00s: Tyson Beckford and Beyoncé"</li> <li> The magazine notes: "On the following pages are 13 persons who have been viewed as sex symbols during Ebony's 40 years of publication. Only some of them consciously play up their sensuality: none of them plays it down." It lists as sex symbols: Billy Dee Williams, Diahann Carroll, Dorothy Dandridge, Harry Belafonte, Lena Horne, Herb Jeffries, Billy Eckstine, Eartha Kitt, Calvin Lockhart, Pam Grier, and Richard Roundtree.</li> <li> The book notes on page 18: <Blockquote>Brief profiles of competitors often focused on their physical attractiveness and included such footage as sex symbols Suzanne Somers and Lynda Carter exercising in full-make up and striking attractive poses. The book notes on page 13: "Starring the established sex symbols Teresa Graves (known for her bikini-clad role on NBC's Laugh-In) and Angie Dickinson (of Hollywood films), both shows put their policewoman heroines in weekly jeopardy as they went undercover to capture criminals." The book notes on page 120: "In Howard's initial play for Jennifer's attention, he references popular female sex symbols, first Olivia Newton-John and then Farrah Fawcett-Majors."</li> <li> The book notes: "Men, as well as women, are seen as sex symbols. In the 1910s and 1920s, the actor Douglas Fairbanks, who played in what were called 'swashbuckling' roles (i.e., in what we now call action films), was seen as the ideal man. In the 1920s, his status as a sex symbol was challenged by Rudolph Valentino, who was seen by women as the romantic ideal. Men, however, compared him negatively to Fairbanks, and there were those in the media who considered him effeminate because of his impeccable dress and slicked down hair (Ellenberger and Ballerini 2005). In the 1930s, movie stars were seen as sex symbols, such as Errol Flynn, who was another swashbuckler, Gary Cooper, and Clark Gable, were the epitome of masculinity. The 1940s found men with a more sophisticated persona like Cary Grant still masculine but more refined. The 1950s was the era of the 'bad boy' image, personified by James Dean, who played a troubled teen in 1955's Rebel Without a Cause, and Marlon Brando, who played a motorcycle gang leader in the 1953 film The Wild Ones."</li> <li> The book notes: "Marilyn Monroe introduced the era's iconic female image, the unthreatening, eroticized, dumb blonde, in two 1950 movies, John Huston's The Asphalt Jungle and Joseph Mankiewicz's All About Eve. Her on-screen celebrity led to being pictorially profiled in Playboys legendary 1953 first issue. Other '50s female movie sex symbols included Bardot, Jayne Mansfield, in The Girl Can't Help It (1956), and Jean Simmons, in Guys and Dolls (1955). A new generation of male sex symbols' included Marlon Brando in On the Waterfront (1954); Paul Newman in The Silver Chalice (1954); James Dean in Rebel without a Cause (1955); and Elvis Presley in Jailhouse Rock (1957). They reconceived masculine identity."</li> <li> In a section titled "Sex Symbols", the book notes: "During the 1930s and 1940s, cinemas in Shanghai and Hong Kong had their share of sex symbols, but because of censorship or social mores, the sexiness was never explicit and was conveyed mainly through swimming scenes or in domestic baths. The career horizon of a pinup girl was extremely short, so recognized sex symbols still appeared in more serious roles. Even the sexiest stars could not afford to make sex appeal a specialty à la Mamie van Doren or Diana Dors. ... Since the early 1960s, Run Run Shaw had openly recruited young women—mainly from Taiwan—for grooming in Hong Kong as sexy starlets. The likes of Chang Chung-wen, Lily Ho, and Mang Lei were followed by Shirley Huang, Angela Yu Chien, and others, who decorated various genres in or half out of contemporary dress or period costumes."</li> <li> The book notes: "Perhaps because of the importance of the Hollywood studio system, sex symbols in the 1940s and 1950s emerged from film. In the 1950s, women who moved from this realm onto the pages of magazines, newspapers, and posters, and into the popular imaginations of men, seemed to reflect the growing economy of the country. These women, such as Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield, were buxom, breathy, blonde and, at first glance, seemed to exist for the sexual and visual pleasure of men. Sex symbols stood in contradistinction to the more appropriate standards of domesticated femininity that were being portrayed in television in the 1950s. These women stood outside traditional marriage and were more interested in seeking out fun than in keeping a good, clean home. Similarly, the male sex symbols that emerged out of the crumbling studio system, James Dean, Marlon Brando, Paul Newman and Montgomery Clift, unlike the efficient corporate model of masculinity, were intense brooders who refused to fit into suburbanized America."</li> </ol> The list is not indiscriminate. What Wikipedia is not says Wikipedia articles should not be: "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics databases", "Excessive listings of statistics", and "Exhaustive logs of software updates". This article is none of these, so it is not indiscriminate. '''The list is not subjective. The inclusion criteria is clear and compliant with the list guideline.''' One editor wrote that "This list is subjective and uncontrollable" and another wrote that "inclusion is too subjective and arguable". I disagree that the list is subjective. From Stand-alone lists: A person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met: <ul> <li>The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. </li> <li>The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.</li></ul> The article complies with the guideline at Stand-alone lists by listing only notable people whose membership in the list is verified by reliable sources. The 2006 AfD discussion should not hold much influence here. An editor wrote above that there was an "overwhelming 2006 consensus to delete both" the category and the list. From the 2006 AfD at Articles for deletion/List of sex symbols (2), an editor wrote: "*Delete, unless someone decides to take his/her time adding a reference for every name to show they are considered sex symbols by a third party and not just Wikipedia editors." This indicates that the 2006 list was completely unsourced or mostly unsourced and that was the primary motivation for deletion. Because the 2016 list is sourced with third-party reliable sources and because Consensus, the 2006 AfD close should have much influence here. The list might never be complete, which is fine. It is fine for the list never to be complete per WikiProject Lists: Because of Wikipedia's role as an almanac as well as an encyclopedia, it contains a large number of lists. Some lists, such as the list of U.S. state birds, are typically complete and unlikely to change for a long time.

Some lists, however, cannot be considered complete, or even representative of the class of items being listed; such lists should be immediately preceded by the Expand list template, or one of the topic-specific variations that can be found at Category:List notification templates. Other lists, such as List of numbers, may never be fully complete, or may require constant updates to remain current – these are known as "dynamic lists", and should be preceded by the Dynamic list template. For example, List of Italians likely never will be complete. It is currently being discussed at Articles for deletion/List of Italians, where there is a strong consensus for retention. The AfD close for List of unusual deaths Here are the first two paragraphs of the 2013 AfD close of Articles for deletion/List of unusual deaths (7th nomination), which was upheld at Deletion review/Log/2013 November 3: "The result was  keep. I can find no way that this list violates WP:IINFO and/or WP:LIST, per the criteria. Furthermore, the list is not automatically WP:TRIVIA just because all of its entries don't have independent articles. Therefore, that argument is invalid. On the other side, the article being mentioned in Time magazine has absolutely no impact on our decision making here, and thereby that is a completely irrelevant argument for keeping this list. The same goes for the amount of page views this article has had, even if that puts the 'want' for the information in perspective. To the point that this list is subjective OR: It isn't, as long as the items in the list are referenced to sources calling the deaths unusual. If there are items in the list where this is not the case, they should be fixed if possible and removed if not. But, improper items on the list is not a good argument for the deletion of the article as a whole. Calling the article 'crap', and or stating that there isn't a good enough inclusion criteria yet are also terrible reasons for deletion. The article can always be improved, (this isn't a BLP1E type situation here). And the inclusion criteria can and should be drafted by a community discussion on it, not by deleting the article. If editors feel that this still hasn't been hammered out properly, an RFC should be started and the results of that RFC should be drafted into a firm policy on the matter." I quote this here to emphasize that 1) the list is not subjective original research and 2) the inclusion criteria can be discussed on the talk page if editors disagree with the current inclusion criteria. General notability guideline There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  Cunard (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC) </li></ul>


 * Pinging substantial contributors to the article:, , , , and based on a review of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_sex_symbols&offset=&limit=1500&action=history. Cunard (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Already commented above. Personally on the fence if this should be kept. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 06:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I would prefer it if this list was moved back into the main article. But I don't see a problem as long as every entry is reliably sourced. It is not an indiscriminate list, as not eveyrbody gets described as a sex symbol. I agree that it seems pretty trivial, but it is very well sourced and useful for people when browsing.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - I chipped in and added another entry (with a reliable source of course) <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - subjective, vague, general term, which today (as, paradoxically, the impressive argument in defense of the list shows) simply means a sex bomb celebrity, which is probably 50% of them today, as well as all pornstars. As meaningless as List of sex bombs, List of machos, List of femmes fatales, List of pinup girls, List of dumb blondes. - all of them may be based on references of the same kind. Famous people are called in reliable sources :-) by various epithets. Shall we collect various list of the kind List of geniuses, List of idiots, etc. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, encyclopedic list seems quite well sourced with hundreds of references, essentially agree with rationale by, above. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge into sex symbol? That seems to make more sense than keeping two separate articles, but if we decide to delete either of them, the other should go as well. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 23:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We can't actually delete this article the normal way, if we keep "sex symbol", since that article was split from this one and we need to keep the edit history. So, a delete of this list article means converting it into a history subpage for "sex symbol" -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep but create an inclusion guideline for entries in the list, to prevent too many trivial mentions from being added to the list. An example would be Talk:List of best-selling music artists. sst✈ 04:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The list is notable, through vigilance is needed to avoid promotion. There are likely unreliable sources to be pruned, through in this case the bar may be low. Promotional materials are of course bad, but frankly, this is a type of subject were a tabloid may be a good source :> --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:54, 9 March 2016 (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.