Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Perfect 10 models (second nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 DELETE. Rje 16:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Perfect 10 models[edit]

It's an unencyclopeædic list made up almost entirely of non-notable people (ordered, tellingly, by first names). The first AfD ended in no consensus; this second AfD was prompted by a message left for me by Bastique, who reports an e-mail from one of the people listed: "This young woman is non-notable, doesn't wish to be notable, and apparently her picture was published without her permission. Note: the models are generally not from English speaking countries and do not enjoy the same protections that the western world offers." Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. The claim that the list is encyclopædic because some of the names on it are notable is, of course, absurd. A List of people who have shopped at Harrods would doubtless also include many notable names, but wouldn't be in the least encyclopædic. It's the list that's being considered here, not the members of the list. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A much better list comparison would be to the ones that are similar, already exist, and have been pointed out below. --Alsayid 14:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you dare even compare Perfect 10 to Playboy and Penthouse with regards to notability? Bastique▼parler voir 15:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't compare the magazines, I compared the magazine model lists, which is appropriate. I believe I also mentioned the List of Playboy NSS models. Actually, there are three or four of them. Second, if the argument is that many of the models listed don't have seperate entries, then it's only reasonable to point out that the Playboy (six or seven of those), Playboy NSS, and Penthouse lists include a great many models without Wikipedia entries. The precedent for such lists is clear, and shouldn't be ignored. --Alsayid 16:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Unfortunately, the first time around this entry was quickly nominated and voted against by some due to a lack of familiarity with the magazine title "Perfect 10" (thinking it a POV).
Regarding notability, whether the models are listed alphabetically by first or last name is an issue of format, not merit. As of today, over 40 models on the list have Wikipedia entries of their own. Rather than judging by those who don't have articles, we should judge by those who do. They include supermodels, Miss Universe contestants, Pets, Playmates, and mainstream actresses.
There are also lists to Playboy Special Editions models, Penthouse models, and big-busted models, so there is definitely precedent.
If the real problem is that one of the models doesn't wish to be listed, then why not address her specifically rather than the entire P10 model entry, which includes so many notables, and ties back in the same way as other lists to the magazine entry? --Alsayid 20:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? Those are established editors/admins who had "voted" previously, or been involved in editing the entry. There's even a Wiki template for Pete's sake. --Alsayid 01:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That template is designed for contributors to an article, not previous voters. It is also designed in order that all people weigh in, not just the ones you expect to vote your way. To have used it properly fairly, you should have put it on the talk pages of the people who voted to delete before as well. Bastique▼parler voir 04:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I did use it for contributor Azerus here, which you seem to object to. Further, I can't find anything against it in the guidelines, but if contacting someone who "voted" previously is wrong to you, then what you did to begin with as seen here and here is wrong by your own definition of "fair." --Alsayid 14:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er... I didn't nominate the article. I mentioned the complaint to Mel, but decided to stay out of the process. At least until after I'd seen the process had already been compromised. Take a look at those dates. Bastique▼parler voir 15:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked. You weighed in here a full day before you'd seen that the process had "been compromised" and made a sharp comment about it. So you compromised your own ethic, though I still don't see any guideline stating that I did something wrong. --Alsayid 16:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I voted after the process had already been compromised by your actions. You have no idea when I saw it, and when I pointed it out to you is inconsequential. Bastique▼parler voir 19:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's clear when you took a shine to me. But please, either back up the charge of wrongdoing with a guideline/policy link, or stop casting accusations and let's focus on the article. --Alsayid 21:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)--Alsayid 21:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Abu Badali 21:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list is not unencyclopedic, and there are several notable people in this list, like Marisa Miller. We have similar other lists like the List of Penthouse Pets. This problem with this young woman is not a reason to delete the entire list. In the worst case scenario, this young woman's name should be removed. Carioca 00:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm sorry to say that there is some stench of bad-faith surrounding this nomination. First, you want to delete the entire article because of one so-called model (who is anonymous to us) asks not to be on the list? Where, pray tell, is the common sense? Common sense dictates that it is the model who should be expunged, not the list. Second, we do have lists for models from other magazines, as indicated above -- and those lists are ordered by first name as well. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 02:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Data is verifiable and way more notable than tons of other things already in the Wikipedia. A model's picture being in a magazine is a fact, even if it was done without authorisation; not having his/her name in this list won't change that fact, and anyone with a copy of the magazine will be able to reach that information. If a model has a problem with Perfect 10, (s)he could sue them, but that won't change what has been done. Remember that wikipedia is not a democracy, it's an encyclopedia. I am sorry for that girl though. Mariano(t/c) 10:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as similar lists exist for other magazines. This article has already survived AFD. If the model has an issue with being recognized with the magazine, she should go after the magazine, not an encyclopedia. Like it or not, she was in the magazine. 23skidoo 19:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Includes too many non-notable names. It's listy. Wikipedia is not an indiscrimination collection of information. Bastique▼parlervoir 20:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Bastique. Mackensen (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. LjL 20:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we delete this we should also delete Penthouse models, and Playboy models 1953-1959, 1960-1969, 1970-1979, 1980-1989, 1990-1999, 2000-present. --Maitch 22:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the good reasons stated above. f(x)=ax2+bx+c 22:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alsayid and Joe Beaudoin. Zeromacnoo 02:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup. This is not quite the same as the lists of Playmates or cover models. An issue of Playboy has only one of each, but could have dozens of other models in pictorials (don't they have several "women of the something-or-other" issues every year?); we don't list everyone who has ever appeared, just those in the more notable positions. If Perfect10 has an equivalent, "featured" model, we could list those - but not everyone who has ever appeared in any pictorial, please. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no way this can be in NPOV and is non notable -- Tawker 20:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no more list cruft. -- Drini 04:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; unencyclopedic list with no value outside of those obsessed with collecting pictures of supposedly "beautiful" women -- and only small value to those. Content like this can find a better home than Wikipedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a magazine index. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What Sjakkalle said. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nominator. —Encephalon 03:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Perfect_10_models_(second_nomination)&oldid=1137998135"