Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sex symbols (4th 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 delete. Numerically, we're at 11 keep to 19 delete in my count, which is close to a 2:1 majority for deletion.

In terms of arguments, Cunard has made a strong (if overlong) case to show that this is indeed a classification of people reflected and discussed in reliable sources. Any strong argument for deletion would therefore need to be something other than non-notability.

The "delete" side does make such an argument: in their view, there are no clear inclusion criteria because almost every celebrity has been called a sex symbol by somebody at some point. Cunard rewrote the list during the AfD to attempt to address this argument, but many people subsequently wrote that they do not think that this resolves the problem of fans re-adding their favorite celebrity based on low-quality sources.

While we are fond of saying that AfD is not cleanup, I am ultimately convinced that the "delete" side's argument that the lack of consensus about inclusion criteria prevents us from writing a high-quality list with this title is a strong one. Together with the "delete" side's numerical majority, I am satisfied that we have rough consensus for deletion until there is a solid consensus among interested editors for establishing inclusion criteria. To establish such consensus, the article can be draftified or userfied, and if such consensus can be established, the article can be restored.  Sandstein  08:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: Deletion requires steward permissions; I have made the required request.  Sandstein   08:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

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

This list serves no encyclopedic purpose and should be deleted. It exemplifies everything that's broken with the way people have been applying the list notability guidelines in deletion discussions in order to keep garbage like this. It is an affront to all that is good and holy about Wikipedia.

Not again. The line must be drawn here. This far. No further!

Even if "Sex symbol" is a topic worthy of an article, it does follow that a list like this is. A puff piece in the entertainment section of a newspaper that hypes Actor X or Actress Y as a "sex symbol" is no basis for inclusion into a list. That's not a reliable source. There are no reliable sources for something like this. you could convince me that a good scholarly study in a sociology journal could pass muster. But that's not what this list is, nor what it ever has been, nor what it ever would be. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 02:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 02:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Per NOT. Attempts to strengthen the inclusion criteria has gotten nowhere. Judging from the references, being a "sex symbol" is almost a requirement for a broad swath of the entertainment industry, and a commonly used label by publicists. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the approach we're taking just results in a list of people promoted as a "sex symbol", which is a fairly indiscriminate label when it comes to publicity. There may be a related, encyclopedic, article that we could create with a similar topic, if we can focus on historical significance rather than routine publicity. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, but drastically trim (Bela Lugosi???). Inclusion should require near-universal acknowledgement (e.g. Marilyn Monroe) by respected sources, not the opinion of some random writer. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:07, 22 June 2020 (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   The encyclopedia has an entry titled "Sex Symbols: Female". It lists these sex symbols: Theda Bara, Clara Bow, Joan Crawford, Greta Garbo, Marlene Dietrich, Jean Harlow, Hedy Lamarr, Betty Grable, Veronica Lake, Rita Hayworth, Lana Turner, Ava Gardner, Jane Russell, Marilyn Monroe, Grace Kelly, Elizabeth Taylor, Carol Lynley, Carrol Baker, Ann-Margret, Jane Fonda, Sophia Loren, Virna Lisi, Gina Lollobrigida, Ursula Andress, Elke Sommer, and Bo Derek. The encyclopedia has an entry titled "Sex Symbols: Male". It lists these sex symbols: Tyrone Power, Montgomery Clift, Rudolph Valentino, Charles Boyer, Cary Grant, Rock Hudson, Sylvester Stallone, Francis X. Bushman, Rudolph Valentino, John Gilbert, Clark Gable, Victor Mature, Burt Lancaster, Marlon Brando, Paul Newman, Robert Redford, Warren Beatty, Kevin Costner, Tom Cruise, John Travolta, and Richard Gere.   The encyclopedia notes: "Film star Theda Bara (1890–1955), known as The Vamp, is considered the first female sex symbol of the silent era ... Although nice girls such as Mary Pickford (1893–1979) and Clara Bow (1904–1965) would later become sex symbols of a different case ... Rudolph Valentino (1895–1926) is generally regarded as the first male cinematic sex symbol ... ... Bill Clinton ... Sean Connery ... Some of the most famous male Hollywood sex symbols include Clark Gable, Cary Grant, Marlon Brando, James Dean, Burt Reynolds, Paul Newman, Robert Redford, Denzel Washington, Tom Selleck, Mel Gibson, and Brad Pitt. ... The most famous female Hollywood sex symbols include Greta Garbo, Marlene Dietrich, Rita Hayworth, Jean Harlow, Dorothy Dandridge, Lana Turner, Jayne Manfield, Elizabeth Taylor, Marilyn Monroe—the most famous of them all—Halle, Berry, and Angelina Jolie. Two of the twentieth century's greatest sex symbols, Brigitte Bardot and Catherine Deneuve, were stars of the French cinema, and another smoldering sex symbol, Sophia Loren, began her film career in Italy before coming to Hollywood. ... Other film industries such as India's Bollywood have produced sex symbols, such as Jaya Bhaduri ...; Vyjayantimala ...; Madhuri Dixit; ... and Mallika Sherawat. Chinese actresses such as Zhang Ziyi are developing an international following, as is Mike Ho, a young actor from Taiwan. Antonio Banderas is one of the most famous male sex symbols in film in the 2000s, and Mexico's Salma Hayek has achieved international fame." The encyclopedia article also lists sex symbols in sports: Tyra Banks, Naomi Campbell, Russian tennis stars Maria Sharapova and Anna Kournikova, Swedish tennis star Bjorn Borg, American tennis champion Andre Agassi, Olympic track star Florence Griffith Joyner, Britain's David Beckham, Britain's rock star sting, Britain's Mick Jagger, Michael Jackson. It also lists Jewish actress Vamp Theda Bara as a sex symbol. It also lists African-American film star sex symbols: Dorothy Dandridge and Denzel Washington.  The book has a chapter titled "Top Ten Female Sex Symbols" which it lists as: Pamela Anderson, Jean Harlow, Farrah Fawcett, Mae West, Jennifer Lopez, Brigitte Bardot, Sophia Loren, Josephine Baker, Madonna, and Marily Monroe. The book has a chapter titled "Top Ten Male Sex Symbols" which it lists as: Sean Connery, Richard Gere, George Clooney, Mick Jagger, Frank Sinatra, Marlon Brando, Humphrey Bogart, Brad Pitt, James Dean, and Elvis.   The book's fourth section is titled "The Sex Symbols" and lists these sex symbols: Theda Bara, Douglas Fairbanks, Rudolph Valentino, Jean Harlow, Marlene Dietrich, Clark Gable, Mae West, Charles Boyer, Errol Flynn, Betty Grable, Rita Hayworth, Jennifer Jones, Ava Gardner, Rock Hudson, Kim Novak, Elizabeth Taylor, Warren Beatty, Raquel Welch, Burt Reynolds, Jacqueline Bisset, and Jodie Foster.   The book has a list of sex symbols and quotes from them: Brigitte Bardot, Victoria Principal, Bette Middler, Woody Allen, Jane Fonda, Joan Collins, Elizabeth Taylor, Raquel Welch, Ellen Goodman, Frank Sinatra, Tom Jones, Casanova, Colette, Jeanne Moreau, Paul Newman, Reggie Jackson, Farrah Fawcett, Sophia Loren, Elizabeth Taylor, Laurence Olivier, and Julio Iglesias. </li> <li> The book lists photos of sex symbols, and three names, and asks the users to select the right names on pages 25–36 with answers on page 154. The sex symbols are: Liberace, Fred Astaire, Ginger Rogers, Mary Pickford, Sophia Loren, Raquel Welch, Virna Lisi, Bo Derek, Marilyn Monroe, Rita Hayworth, Elke Sommer, Cheryl Ladd, Linda Christian, Sally Rand, Carole Landis, Angie Dickinson, Twiggy, Ann Sheridan, Rita Moreno, Capucine, Leslie Brooks, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Denise Darcel, Cher, Julie Newmar, Lili St. Cyr, Terry Moore, Joey Heatherton, Morgan Fairchild, Diana Dors, Mamie Van Doren, May Britt, Kim Novak, Corinne Calvet, Jayne Mansfield, Marie Wilson, and Suzanne Somers. </li> <li> The book notes: "represents the moment when Daniel Craig the actor ‘became’ Daniel Craig the sex symbol. ... more than that this iconic sequence established Ursula Andress as one of the sex symbol of the 1960s. ... Halle Berry was not the first black ‘Bond Girl’. ... consolidated her prominence as one of the new sex symbols of the twenty-first century. ... another sex symbol of the 1960s, Sean Connery. ...  figures such as Marilyn Monroe, whose star signification is entirely bound up with notions of the sex symbol ... Theda Bara for example, perhaps one of the prototypical sex symbols of the early years of the twentieth century. ... there are those whose sex-symbol status is latterly conferred. The contemporary example of David Beckham ... The recent example of the British comedy actor Hugh Laurie, whose status as a sex symbol has been conferred ... the casting of Channing Tatum, Matthew McConaughey and Joe Manganiello, three actors who have all had the status of sex symbol applied to them ..."</li> <li> Natalie Wood wrote a forward to the book. The book notes that "my basic defense of the twenty-two performers I've selected as subjects for this book is that they might well be termed universal male sex symbols." Here are the 22 sex symbols: Rudolph Valentino, Douglas Fairbanks, John Barrymore, John Gilbert, Ronald Colman, Gary Cooper, John Wayne, Clark Gable, Cary Grant, Charles Boyder, Robert Taylor, Errol Flynn, Tyrone Power, Humphrey Bogart, Frank Sinatra, Yul Brynner, Marlon Brando, Rock Hudson, James Dean, Robert Wagner, Paul Newman, and Robert Redford. </li> <li></li> <li> This is the 2008 edition of the book. (There is also a 1981 edition that has a different list of sex symbols.) The book's table of contents lists sex symbols and the page numbers they are discussed on: "Josephine Baker (15)… Clara Bow (18)… Lord Byron (20)… Casanova (24)… Jean Harlow (28) … Mata Hari (31)… Prince Aly Khan (34)… Marilyn Monroe (37)… Porfiro Rubirosa (41)… Anna Nicole Smith (43)… Rudolph Valentino (45)"</li> <li> This is the 1981 edition of the book. (There is also a 2008 edition that has a different list of sex symbols.) The book notes: "15. Sex Symbols Prince Aly Khan (481) ... Clara Bow (483) ... Lord Byron (485) .... Casanova (489) ... Sex Questionnaire on Casanova (493) ... Jean Harlow (496) ... Mata Hari (499) ... Adah Isaacs Menken (503) ... Marilyn Monroe (505) ... Porfirio Rubirosa (510) ... Rudolph Valentino (512)"</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> </ol>

<ol> <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> The article notes: "Elvis ... Marilyn Monroe ... Madonna ... These celebrity sex symbols are credited with taboo breaking, alleviating nations of their sexually repressed characters and revealing the cultural narrative of women’s entry and engagement in and around discourses of sexuality in the twentieth century (Dyer 1986, 2004). ... the new female celebrity sex symbol is understood ... For example, Paglia (2010) has claimed that singer Lady Gaga ... Brooke Magnanti’s blog and autobiography penned under the name Belle de Jour proved an interesting point of discussion in relation to the capacity for the postfeminist celebrity sex symbol to be self-made and money-making."</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 book notes: "For the most part, there were no black counterparts to white sex symbols such as Marilyn Monroe and Ann-Margret; such figures were largely absent from the pages of magazines and newspapers. Lena Horne, Dorothy Dandridge, and Eartha Kitt were rare exceptions."</li> <li> Chapter 3 of the book is titled "Sex Symbols". The book notes: "You'll also follow the steamy paths of Hollywood's many sex symbols, such as Errol Flynn, Betty Grable, and Raquel Welch."</li> <li> The book notes: "Hattie McDaniel ... consistently starred opposite the quintessential white sex symbols of the day such as Jean Harlow, Vivien Leigh, Barbara Stanwyck, and Olivia de Havilland. ... The fair skinned Ethel Moses was billed as 'the Negro Harlow,' Bee Freeman was called 'the sepia Mae West,' Lorenzo Tucker 'the black Valentino,' and Slick Chester 'the colored Cagney.' In movies such as Temptation (1936) and God's Stepchildren (1937), these early black sex symbols operated in a parallel universe, outside the Hollywood mainframe, and became stars within the community. ... But former LA Rams football hero Woody Strode did break through when ... he became one of the era's only black male sex symbols."</li>

<li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></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: "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> 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 at Articles for deletion/List of sex symbols (3rd nomination) 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. Puff piece sources that hype actors and actresses as sex symbols The nominator wrote, "A puff piece in the entertainment section of a newspaper that hypes Actor X or Actress Y as a 'sex symbol' is no basis for inclusion into a list." This is an argument for trying to achieve consensus on the talk page to have the list selection criteria (Stand-alone lists) exclude "puff piece" sources that "hype" actors or actresses as "sex symbols". It is not a policy-based argument for deleting the entire list. 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, a gazetteer, 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:Hatnote templates for lists. 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 people from Italy likely never will be complete. It was discussed at Articles for deletion/List of Italians, where there was 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) 09:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC) </li></ul>

PAGE ]]) 22:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging Articles for deletion/List of sex symbols (3rd nomination) participants:, , , , , , , , , , , , , and . Cunard (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're pinging them, make sure to also ping the participants in the other nominations (if any of them are still around): Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK


 * Delete I'm not denying that the concept of sex symbols is notable, but what a sex symbol is is too ambiguous to have an article listing them. If we go by the usual requirement of 1 source saying they are a sex symbol then we could have people who are jokingly referred to as a sex symbol in one or two articles put on the same list as Pussy Galore and Maralyn Monroe. There are just too many problems with this article for it to be on Wikipedia. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep we shouldn't downplay the citations listed above that discuss sex symbols in detail. Also, the nominator's comments on keeping "garbage like this" and that the page "serves no encyclopedic purpose and should be deleted" are thinly veiled WP:IDONTLIKEIT points. The purpose of this page is to show that there are various people that society/the media has found sexy, though some admittedly are more famous for this distinction than others. While the article might not be perfect, AFD isn't supposed to be a place for cleanup. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 12:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This list be cleaned up.  I called it garbage because it  garbage.  I  like it.  It's unencyclopedic garbage, and we should delete unencyclopedic garbage.  Not again. The line must be drawn here. This far. No further!  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 13:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Personal taste is irrelevant to whether something warrants an article. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 15:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My concerns are that: 1) The purpose of the page is to list people promoted with the label "sex symbol" which can apply to anyone with enough publicity behind them. 2) A "List of people notable for being sex symbols across multiple decades", or something similar where historical significance is clear, might be encyclopedic, but that's a different article entirely. Could you address these two concerns? (Apologies if they already are to some extent in your lengthy commentary). --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. From what I can remember, there was a point where somebody tried to limit citation use to those that specifically said "sex symbol" and not just synonyms (which may have at least partially been an attempt to avoid overfilling the page). Promotion of labels did not appear to be a concern as long as we kept our own personal views out (i.e. not saying we found one person sexier than another or that someone didn't deserve to be called sexy) and precise descriptions were used by a credible publication and the article accurately reflected what scholars/the press had written. 2. Using something like "notable for" in an article title is inappropriate POV and editorializing. A better idea might be splitting this into subpages for decades as that would give clear and neutral criteria plus could be easier to manage. See Lists of people on the United States cover of Rolling Stone and its listed subpages for an example of what I mean. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 18:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I was unable to convey my concerns, as that response doesn't address either. Additional information in an attempt to clarify:
 * 1) Because "sex symbol" is used fairly indiscrimately, we have ended up simply echoing publicity campaigns rather than present information that belongs in an encyclopedia.
 * 2) You appear to dismiss this concern based upon the title I gave that served as an example, while completely ignoring the purpose: to stress historical significance. It's how we should separate WP:SOAP from clearly encyclopedic content. Further, I'm saying any such change in inclusion criteria will be a different article. I also am suggesting we indicate the tighter inclusion criteria in the title itself, to avoid SPA editors from repeating what they've done with the current article. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies for how that didn't help your concerns. Regarding the first point, I was saying that issues over promoting labels didn't seem to be problematic, at least when I was editing this article ages ago. Not sure how to filter out the worthy inclusions from the unworthy ones now when there's currently over 1,400 citations (substantially more than I ever remember seeing in the past). As for the second point, I knew what your purpose was, I just object to the proposed title suggestion. Any new inclusion criteria should probably be established within prose. I admittedly can't think of a good way to do that at the moment or how to appropriately convey it in the article title. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 22:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 21:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC) (edit to clarify that I still support deletion after Cunard's changes, as the new format is so prose-heavy that it seems like it would be better as prose than as a list per WP:LISTDD --Ahecht (<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK PAGE ) 21:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)) PAGE ]]) 17:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 18:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - after giving this one some thought, while I think there's no issue with the notability of this list, there is a problem with WP:SALAT because I don't see a way to set an unambiguous inclusion criteria short of "has been called a sex symbol". Unfortunately that's a term that people, including reliable sources, throw around without a lot of clarity about what they mean other than that, well, they think someone is attractive. And if that's the case, why wouldn't we include synonyms? Include "sexiest man/woman alive" lists and "heartthrobs" and "hunks" and "babes"? What's the difference? The closest thing I can think of to a sensible criteria is to only include people in sources that are about the concept of "sex symbols" (maybe even limited to scholarly literature). That's potentially problem prone in itself, and probably sufficiently limiting that it couldn't get buy in among those who would edit such a page, so I wind up as weak delete. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as there is no doubt the topic is very notable with an abundance of coverage in many reliable sources as shown in the list and analysis presented earlier. Though I would suggest that the inclusion criteria be tightened to include people who have been considered as sex symbols by reliable sources over a period of time say perhaps ten years so that temporary promotional descriptions of sex symbols would not be enough for inclusion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Today the term simply means "sexually attractive", which is applicable to 90% of young actresses, 100% of porn stars and 25% of male actors, and now this is nothing but a WP:PEACOCK term for a pretty celebrity. This renders the list basically useless. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cunard. The sources available and cited in the article show how well many entries can not only be verified but contextualized in cultural history. The nominator and deletion !votes too easily disregard that and are either coming from WP:IDONTLIKEIT (as with the nominator's quite obvious contempt) or WP:SUSCEPTIBLE (as with Staszek Lem's slippery slope fear that this would somehow explode to include the entire porn industry). postdlf (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as overly broad, bordering on indiscriminate. Virtually every celebrity today has a puff piece or two calling them a sex symbol, and trying to narrow it down to people "primarily known for being a sex symbol" or other stronger criteria ends up being too subjective, so we're heading towards a list of every celebrity who was under 40 years old at some point. This list already exceeds the post-expand include size limit due to the number of references (which technically makes it fail WP:V and WP:BLP since that prevents citations from being displayed), so any criteria that requires multiple references would make the problem worse and is unworkable. Requiring backlinks (e.g. requiring the celebrity's article to call them a sex-symbol) will just result in more title-stuffing in lead sentences of those articles (it's bad enough that so many celebrities articles start with "So-and-so is an actor, musician, DJ, model, entrepreneur, businessman, philanthropost, author, presenter, fashion designer, speaker, creative consultant, voice over artist, and activist" -- we don't need to add "sex symbol" to that list). --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * If the page is too large, the solution is to WP:SPLIT it. And no, IT display issues have no bearing on V or BLP; the sources exist and are in the page code regardless of any rendering problem. We can also always subst: citation templates to bypass the issue entirely. postdlf (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Citation templates are intentionally not able to be subst:ed. Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * Then the cite can be typed in manually. Templates are for editor convenience, they are not necessary to use. postdlf (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete There's no meaning or consistency.  There are various lists of sex symbols, and it's fine to cover and summarize them in various articles, separately. But, we can't mix and match different sources using different criterion.  I don't want a lists of people who are stupid, ugly, pretty, dorky, nerdy, rude, polite, honest, dishonest, competent, incompetent, good, bad people etc...  I can find an endless abundance of sources for lists of each of these types of things, but the lists mean nothing.  A list of "sex symbols" is WP:SYNTH, as you're creating a fresh list, that no single source would ever put together, or approve of.  It's wanton misinterpretation to mix a source calling somebody a sex symbol because of their body, with somebody who bases it on their mind, or personality, or how they move, or how they dress, or maybe they just wanted to pay a compliment.  Just because two sources use the same literal words, does not always mean they are talking about the same thing.  --Rob (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cunard. Well sourced and has an encyclopaedic purpose. For complaints about there being too many people: WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. We aren't at the point of WP:TNT - not even close. You can purge poor entries that don't meet WP:LISTCRITERIA, but I would note that each has 2 sources. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Over the years I gravitated to a deletionist position, but I think this list meets LISTN. But as I said before, only referenced entries should be kept. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per my views from 14 years ago. Inclusion criteria are irredeemably POV and pretty much every female celebrity of any sort (as well as plenty of the males) gets described as a sex symbol from time to time. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination doesn't make a clear case while Cunard has done an excellent job of demonstrating the notability of the topic. The main work needed is to expand the list, not delete it, as my impression is that it is dominated by Hollywood types and so is missing people like Lili Li and Eugen Sandow. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep What happens to the names and citations if the list is deleted? If appropriate, move each half of the contents to the proposed split pages, if it's still too large. That list has been live for almost 19 years, or since October 2001. I edited that more than 500 times since late 2017 and added dozens of names if the sources have stated that they were externally identified, mentioned, or described as sex symbols. Santiago Claudio (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that we're adding people that self identify as a sex symbol shows exactly how meaningless this list is. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * I agree that self-identification should be completely irrelevant here but that's easily corrected, and I don't think it would be difficult to establish and demonstrate a consensus on the talk page (if there isn't already in the archive) that would require third party sources. postdlf (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep – Our policy regarding lists of people says:
 * All entries are notable enough to have their own article, and all of them are called "sex symbols" by reliable sources. Editors of the page have already reinforced inclusion criteria by requiring two citations for each entry, and I would agree that we should further tighten our standards by banning anecdotal mentions, jokes, puff pieces, and third-rate sources. That's a worthy discussion for the talk page, not AfD. — JFG talk 22:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * All entries are notable enough to have their own article, and all of them are called "sex symbols" by reliable sources. Editors of the page have already reinforced inclusion criteria by requiring two citations for each entry, and I would agree that we should further tighten our standards by banning anecdotal mentions, jokes, puff pieces, and third-rate sources. That's a worthy discussion for the talk page, not AfD. — JFG talk 22:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm sorry, but I no longer see the purpose of a list like this. Plus, overall, I think the list of sex symbols, particularly the 2000s and 2010s sections, is just too long. Mr. Brain (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete/TNT Massive list does not serve a useful purpose to the reader. While the sources provided above could well contribute to the Sex symbol article or a selective list that provides deeper discussion about a limited number of the best known sex symbols, this is merely a indiscriminate list of attractive celebrities. Why do many people become celebrities? Because they're sexually attractive to some people – not that many ugly people make it big in showbusiness. Countless more celebs around the world have modeled or played a role in a romantic film or whatever else that makes them sex symbols, a term clearly used very broadly, and such a catalogue of any pop culture news article that uses the term does not make a distinguishing characteristic. If you don't want to ignore "citations listed above that discuss sex symbols in detail" then freaking use them in detail, not as an unencyclopedically context-free, overly broad bullet-point list. Reywas92Talk 20:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per JFG. RadioDemon (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * delete on the basis of TNT. This needs to be nuked from orbit and rewritten in a way that identifies only people who are clearly described as sex symbols but MULTIPLE RS. Not one off mentions in teenbop "omg look at these sex symbols!" It needs to be a defining characteristic and right now this list is so trivial and indiscriminate it's useless. Praxidicae (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact, digging through this in an attempt to clean it up, it's also a massive blp vio but if for some insane reason this listcruft is kept, it should be moved to it's correct name which would be A list of anyone who has ever been referred to a sex symbol on the internet. Praxidicae (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * List of HOTTIES, List of Google search results for "sex symbol", List of famous folks some rando tabloid writer found attractive (but we're not gonna give you context about any of them, mostly because there isn't any as this has apparently become a meanless phrase applied in passing to anyone conventionally attractive [or not, just popular]) Reywas92Talk 21:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC) <ul><li>Comment: I deleted the entire list and then added a new table containing nine entries: I've reviewed the comments by, , , and other editors and agree that the list needs substantial work. There are a number of entries sourced to unreliable sources. Here is a small sample from this 30 June 2020 revision, which has 1,064 list entries and 1,433 references:<ol><li>http://www.thechicflaneuse.com/la-belle-otero-the-great-courtesan-of-the-parisian-belle-epoque/</li><li>https://www.flavorwire.com/514957/silent-film-sex-symbols-the-men</li><li>https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9021</li><li>https://medium.com/@hlemonroe/the-enigmatic-death-of-thelma-todd-4aa2e7e0a7bd</li><li>https://www.inquisitr.com/4254024/property-brothers-jonathan-and-drew-scott-strip-naked-in-sexy-photoshoot-for-charity/</li><li>https://www.celebretainment.com/celebrities/chris-evans-im-not-hot/article_93ce153e-dd88-57bd-8640-3e2ca5b517c6.html</li></ol> The BLP concerns raised by Drmies and Praxidicae have merit as a number of the entries are sourced to unreliable sources. WP:BLPREMOVE says: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: <ul><li>I would add to your criteria that all sources should be authors, journalists, or academics who are themselves notable (with existing Wikipedia articles) for their writing or commentary on popular culture or the media. --Ahecht (<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK PAGE ) 14:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)</li></ul> </li></ul> PAGE ]]) 14:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete (or rename per Praxidicae's suggestion) - overly broad list based on subjective labels too commonly applied to be of any encyclopedic value. edit 30 Jun 20:22, to add: After Cunard's added edits to the article, my view is still delete per reasoning aptly stated below by Rhododendrites and Reywas92. Just adding this clarification to show that I'm aware of the changes in the article since I first posted, but that I still stand by my opinion. Schazjmd   (talk)  22:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is a disaster. In principle, if editors here took sourcing requirements seriously, this could be done, but practically speaking it can't, and so we have 400k of stuff, much of which drivel sourced to this or that tabloid. And Praxidicae's point about the BLP should be taken seriously as well, given the paucity of the sources. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ahecht ("Virtually every celebrity today has a puff piece or two calling them a sex symbol, and trying to narrow it down to people "primarily known for being a sex symbol" or other stronger criteria ends up being too subjective, so we're heading towards a list of every celebrity who was under 40 years old at some point") and Staszek Lem. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * While acknowledging the significant effort put in by User:Cunard, I still don't think that this is a good idea for an article, per User:RegentsPark below, and continue to support deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just make the article better: It makes me sad that the excellent work that Cunard did above may end up as an archived AfD discussion and not actually added to the vastly under-written sex symbol article. All of the time and energy spent in this discussion should be put to use improving the existing article/s. I don't think it matters whether this ends up as one article or two. This is obviously a notable subject with historical and sociological significance. Just make the article better. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The consensus that is building here is that the label "sex symbol" is too subjective for a Wikipedia list, unlike, say, List of films considered the worst (which is based on broad consensus of reliable sources), and is applied indiscriminately. The label can raise BLP concerns due to its POV nature, especially when unsourced or poorly sourced. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 05:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) is unsourced or poorly sourced;
 * 2) is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see No original research);
 * 3) relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see ); or
 * 4) relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards. I do not have time to go through all 1,064 list entries and 1,433 references to remove the entries sourced to unreliable sources before the AfD is closed. Other editors likely do not have that time either. As a first step, I am removing all list entries for two reasons: BLPREMOVE and being a "context-free, overly broad bullet-point list" as Reywas92 noted.  As a second step, after removing all entries, I am adding a new table with nine list entries to show what I want the list to look like in the future. I chose those nine entries primarily from the "1800s and earlier" subsection so entries from 1900–2020 are not represented on the list. The nine entries are in a table containing three columns: "Name of the person", "Year of birth", and "Details". The "Details" column contains context about why or how someone is considered a sex symbol.  I support instituting a list selection criteria with these requirements to prevent the list from becoming populated with incorrect entries and unreliable sources again: <ol><li>A new entry must be sourced to high quality reliable sources. Sources excluded from establishing someone's membership on the list are "anecdotal mentions, jokes, puff pieces, and third-rate sources" (a great suggestion from ). Any disputed entries must achieve consensus on the talk page before being restored.</li><li>A new entry must contain context about why or how the person is considered a sex symbol.</li></ol> Deleting nearly the entire list is a controversial action, but I think it is the best way to comply with BLP and to save the list from deletion. I hope interested editors will help work on rebuilding the list to add sex symbols born in 1900–2020 using only high quality reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 10:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Cunard's new version is a huge step forward, well done. This is an area of real interest in the history of culture and entertainment, and deserves to be taken seriously. I think that we'll have to find the right balance for what kind of coverage is suitable to support these entries. Obviously, someone being called a "sex symbol" for the purposes of a magazine cover story is not serious; the writers are exaggerating in order to write an eye-catching article. On the other hand, I think Ahecht's proposed standard that the writer has to have a Wikipedia page is too restrictive; we don't require that for reliable sources on any other article. I think that published books like the ones that Cunard quotes above can be good sources. One possible standard is that the person is discussed as a "sex symbol" (not just in a list) in multiple published books/journal articles. Elizabeth Taylor is discussed in five of the sources that Cunard excerpted, and there's undoubtedly more discussion in published biographies and works of film criticism. But these standards can be worked out through editing and discussion, not as part of an AfD discussion. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There has already been lots of such editing and discussion over the years (including the proposal to require multiple sources), see the talk page archives. We are here because this has consistently failed. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason to require a notable writer is that calling someone a sex symbol is inherently subjective, and we have to be very careful about what opinions we're presenting as fact (by including them in a list definitively naming them as sex symbols) about living people. It provides a clear bright-line, unlike other vague terms such as "reputable sources", and allows for easier sorting through the thousands of entries that this page would quickly grow to otherwise. The alternative is that we go back to having dozens of edit requests per day to add to the article, and people reviewing those edit requests will quickly get burnt out and not do their due diligance, or renaming the article to something like List of people considered sex symbols to make it clear that we're presenting some people's opinion. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK

PAGE ]]) 21:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - So with the new, shorter version, what is the remaining reason for retaining this as a stand-alone article? Not only is a smaller list a sensible inclusion at the main sex symbol article, but Cunard has done us the favor of using primarily prose. This seems clearly more at home in a main article. I still see this AfD as supporting a "this shouldn't be a stand-alone article" regardless of whether there's a merge. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you Cunard for your TNT of the article! I concur with Rhododendrites that this still does not need to be a separate page. Sex symbol is practically a stub, and short details about some of the best-known sex symbols can go there. I will still say that there are a lot of people known for being attractive and capitalizing on their appeal – that's kind of how celebrity works – and even limiting the list to those with more in-depth discussion in reliable sources is unsustainable. Just pick a top handful perhaps to show the cultural position of bombshells over time, illustrating what it actually means that the public is captivated by sexiness, but not as a list that attempts to be comprehensive. Reywas92Talk 20:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a good-faith way to respond to the page's improvement. Cunard has set forth a starting point to revamp the page in a more serious, well-sourced way, which answers the basic criticisms of the original page. What I'm hearing is essentially, "hey, great work, now delete what you've done, and let's forget about it." — Toughpigs (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I interpret it as "hey, great work, now merge it into Sex symbol since it is so prose-heavy that it doesn't make much sense as a stand-alone list. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * Yes, it's a good start, but includes 9/10 people on the original list who were pre-1900, taking quotations from the sources starting at the top. I guess it's hard to compare since obviously this term is used retroactively for these folks, and perhaps with more candor than how much it's thrown around for the current celebs, but addressing my concerns that the list is "context-free" and "bullet-point" doesn't necessarily address "overly broad". So this is excellent for a limited number but can still get out of control since a fraction of the original 1000+ names is still huge and not going to be useful to a reader. Depends who would put in that work and how "in-depth" is defined... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - vague and subjective.  IWI  ( chat ) 18:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – I support 's bold initiative. A list with detailed analysis of how and why a person has been considered a sex symbol of their era is a much better encyclopedic way of approaching the subject matter. I would be happy to contribute to expansion of the list with other instances. Regarding the potential merge into the main Sex symbol article, I think it's too soon to decide. I think the list will easily get expanded to 100–200 entries, and that would be a bit heavy for the main article. However we should definitely expand the main article with citations to some of the better in-depth sources that are being surfaced in this discussion. — JFG talk 21:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete While Cunard has done a good job of cleaning it up, I fear this list is going to be blp problematic for eternity. Also, the idea that someone says "xyz is a sex symbol", even if the source be reliable, and we then go ahead and add them to the list is sketchy at best. Add to this the fact that the term itself is ill-defined and subjective (for example, what if one article blares "sex symbol" and another yells "plain Jane", do they cancel each other out?). --regentspark (comment) 22:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Re-Delete, just as it was deleted in 2006. This is an inherently subjective list; and there is and cannot be a criterion for whether an individual is a "sex symbol". This unencylopedic list can never be more than what it is now, a list of persons that some published writer (often just a headline writer) somewhere has used the term "sex symbol" (often ironically) to describe. TJRC (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

<ul><li>Standalone article I agree with  that "I think the list will easily get expanded to 100–200 entries, and that would be a bit heavy for the main article. However we should definitely expand the main article with citations to some of the better in-depth sources that are being surfaced in this discussion." I have added nine more entries to the list (there are now 18 entries in total). The latest additions are from the 1900s to 1920s section of the list's previous version. Inclusion criteria is not subjective or vague The article's inclusion criteria is not subjective or vague. It meets the selection criteria at Stand-alone lists by including only notable people who have received substantial coverage in high quality reliable sources about why they are considered sex symbols. It is fine for sources to conflict RegentsPark asked, "for example, what if one article blares 'sex symbol' and another yells "plain Jane", do they cancel each other out?" If the source that calls the person a sex symbol is a high quality reliable source that provides in-depth discussion of why that person is considered a sex symbol, then yes, the selection criteria would include the person. It is fine for Wikipedia articles to rely on subjective reliable sources as long as Wikipedia editors themselves are not being subjective. Regarding the source that calls the person a "plain Jane": The source should be included only if it has in-depth discussion of why the person should not be considered a sex symbol. Otherwise, the source is not relevant for use in a sex symbols list. A "plain Jane" could still be considered a sex symbol, so it would be original research to make the assumption that a plain Jane is not a sex symbol. Here is an example to illustrate the point:

"The example of the greatest sex symbol classical music has ever produced - Franz Liszt - shows that looks are hardly the most important thing. True, Liszt was mesmerisingly good-looking when young ... But, 30 years later, Liszt had a facial wart to rival Oliver Cromwell's, and was routinely dressed in an abbé's vestments. Yet he still fascinated women (and not elderly ones either). One of his admirers disguised herself as a man to pursue him across Europe."

This complies with Neutral point of view, "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance." It is fine for reliable sources to be conflicting. Some of the films in List of films considered the worst might have received positive reviews from some critics. We are not deleting that article for being subjective or ill-defined because it has well-defined inclusion criteria just like "list of sex symbols does". BLP and promotion: tightening the selection criteria Regarding WP:BLP, the revised list currently contains only dead people. To address the BLP and promotion concerns, the list's selection criteria could be tightened to allow additions of only dead people who received in-depth coverage from posthumous reliable sources about how they are sex symbols. I think excluding living people would be too restrictive, so another way to tight the inclusion criteria would be to adopt the suggestion by : only include "people who have been considered as sex symbols by reliable sources over a period of time say perhaps ten years so that temporary promotional descriptions of sex symbols would not be enough for inclusion". The list's inclusion criteria is a content matter and can be discussed on the article's talk page. Deletion should be considered a last resort if the BLP concerns cannot be addressed, which they have been. Cunard (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC) </li></ul>


 * Delete per Ahecht and Staszek Lem. To add another perspective:
 * Since 2008, I have been trying to do my share to curate this list and make it work. (I'm only #11 by number of edits, but might be near the top by number of reverts.) I too thought at some point that the problem could be solved with enforcing sourcing requirements more strictly and defining inclusion criteria, but these attempts have consistently failed. This makes the "keep" votes above that basically go "but, but, this time it will really work, trust me, and if not, we could try X, Y and Z" very unconvincing. 18 years is long enough for this experiment.
 * While I appreciate the TNT attempt, augmenting the list with mini articles/essays about the sex-symbolness of each entry creates its own problems, and the format is unlikely to be maintained for long - editors have already started to add entries without that extra text. Also, it will likely just get reverted anyway to the old format after this AfD closes.
 * Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment now that it has been turned into a well referenced list with prose descriptions the reasons for deletion seem to have been countered and we should certainly not delete articles because of disruptive editing, page protection is the answer to that problem. The reliable sources coverage shows the article passes WP:LISTN and with a sensible inclusion criteria such as only permitting entries that have been classed as sex symbols by reliable sources over a span of say ten years would avoid celebrity pr coverage from expanding the list unnecessarily. Such an inclusion criteria would prevent the page being expanded too much. Finally criticising the prose such as mini-essays is not correct as this is the sort of prose that is included in featured lists so is totally acceptable. Overall then I can't see a policy based reason for deletion remaining that is valid in any way, in my opinion, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep if good criteria for inclusion can be established. M.Clay1 (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.