Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Blackwell's Ten Worst Dressed Women - 1990s


 * 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, I also find it hard to fit this article into WP:NOT requirement, so I didn't weight it in as much. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Blackwell&

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Funny as it is, it does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. It is just a pointless, funny as hell, list. It's not wikipedia worthy. Delete Metal Head (talk) 03:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, which is all this is. No information presented, and even if we sourced it I doubt it would be eligible for an article. Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  03:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per preceding comment. Earth bending  master  03:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * DeleteOhmygod Bekki, look at her butt, its so big! per nom. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Mr. Blackwell's annual "worst dressed" list has been a newspaper favorite, year after year, and for decades. Easily sourced, and this is by no means a "directory".  Maybe Blackwell is passe' (he's in his 80s now), but there was a time when people could say, "Everybody's heard of Mr. Blackwell!"Mandsford (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Who cares if it has been a "newspaper favorite". For one, there is no source that states this. Also, a list about who dressed the worst is pointless, people could say it on his page.Mr. Blackwell's page has a section for this. Metal Head (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep historically notable lists. Silly, but there you go.  Commonly discussed in entertainment rags back in the day.  Sources exist, but good luck finding them on the web.  Hobit (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't necessarily need web sources, but the point is, none can be found at all... it is the responsibility for the keep voters to assert notability if the pages notability is in question. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. Both sides need to show that notability is either likely or unlikely.  Sources help, but so do arguments/proof that sources don't exist.  Though some (good) sources have been found, most of these sources are going to be entertainment rags that often don't have a web archive.  Hobit (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - these lists are very well publicized when they come out on a yearly basis, and I'm sure if someone went through the effort to find newspaper articles or news clips from the era, it could be sourced. They may not easily be sourced, but they certainly can be.  It's an important yearly pop culture item. matt91486 (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)  ::Here's a link to a New York Times article from 1997: here.  This isn't without really searching other than going to the New York times and entering the search term.  Obviously going to more resources or even searching a little harder in the NYT could come up with more. It's ludicrous to say that no sources could be found at all, Librarian. matt91486 (talk) 06:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, to clarify, that article was about Rodman winning in 1996. Here's an LA Daily News article about the actual 1997 list:  here.  But, really, I hope this ends the debate on whether or not sources could be found.  People just have to be willing to look. matt91486 (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Still, it does not deserve it's own page. There is a section on the blackwell list for this. If not delete, Merge.Metal Head (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you've really given a convincing reason for why it doesn't deserve its own article. If its publication is covered yearly in major media, it seems to clearly meet notability. matt91486 (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - The list is already mentioned on the page for Richard Blackwell, and I see no reason why it merits its own article. The list may be a source of pop-culture discussion, but that seems to be the only reason why it should be kept.   Musashi1600 (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't being a source of pop culture discussion, when that discussion is carried out in major media, a sign of notability? matt91486 (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge to whoever-he-is Mr. Blackwell. A non-notable list. Dekisugi (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Decades-old institution that has drawn international press attention every year since the '70s or before. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 19:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or, if there is something worth saving, merge it to the appropriate page. It seems non notable to me. --Stormbay (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Sources have been added. I'm not sure that it will change any minds, but the annual list was was printed in newspapers the world around. I can't remember who wrote, "Who cares if it was a newspaper favorite?" but that's what people got their news from before the Internet came along. Mandsford (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2008 (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.