Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Most Beautiful People

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. Chaser - T 10:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

100 Most Beautiful People

100 Most Beautiful People (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Subjective list of links to celebrities Clicketyclack 06:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, and sternly chastise creators of such lists. RFerreira 07:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. This is a feature of People Magazine, not the personal POV it appears to be. It does get widely reported on outside People, so I suppose it might be encyclopedic, if it had some context to explain what it is. —Celithemis 07:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into People Magazine. This is not just some subjective list but a report of People Magazine's annual list. As such, merge or tag for significant cleanup to make that fact clear.--Crunch 07:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and send to the cleanup taskforce. I don't think merging something as detailed as this in the main article is a good idea. Having a lead explaining the list would be a good idea thought. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR (it is not up to Wikipedia to keep statistics of cover pages etc.); even if not deleted, it must be renamed, because these stars are surely not the "most beautiful people" in an absolute sense, but in fact only the "most beautiful Hollywood celebrities according to a US magazine".--Ioannes Pragensis 10:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Ioannes Bulldog123 12:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect Delete to People Magazine. I don't believe this particular feature merits its own article. This is something that they they do once a year. There is no reason why it couldn't be merged if there is something worth keeping. Most of the pages that link to 100 Most Beautiful People are not articles about the person on the cover, but people that were mentioned elsewhere (like say #42). What is the point in linking someone to a list of cover people when they were not on the cover? --Cyrus Andiron 12:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Didn't this use to be 50 most beautiful people. There should be some explanation about when it went to 100. If Sexiest Man Alive exists so should this. Should not be merged unless SMA is also forced to merge. Equally credible fork. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Problem is that you're right - SMA is pretty much the same. There may be some credibility, but as it's pretty much the same, I'm inclined to think it should be brought here to AfD. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well spotted. Sexiest Man Alive should go to AfD too, for the same reasons as this one. I'll get onto that now. Clicketyclack 09:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Sexiest Man Alive now also has an AfD debate going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexiest Man Alive. Clicketyclack 21:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete there's no context here, or sourced, whether it is from People magazine or something though up in school one day. It is also not about 100 anythings; it appears to be the ONE person thought by somebody to be the most beautiful. If kept it should be cleaned up, sourced, and renamed to reflect what is: Most beautiful person annually selected by XXX, now that we see what the article really is, still wanna keep it? Carlossuarez46 20:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No sourcing, little more than a list with a distinct lack of context. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There is nothing to discuss. No criteria are given, no context is provided, and no references are added. Placeholder account 22:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. If you read the People Magazine article you will see that 1. it is not a random list thought up by one person and 2. in answer to TonyTheTiger, it did used to be 50 most beautiful people. I think it's helpful to do a bit of background research like this before casting a vote here. --Crunch 23:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)23:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    • What happened to 50 most beautiful people? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• DeleteNo sources. Is this from a magazine? Doppelganger 01:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into People Magazine. This is a feature of a magazine, and as it stands now I don't see any real reason to give it its own article. Clean it up, add sources, and make it a section or sub-section of the main article, says I. TommyP 04:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This begs the question: should we be a mirror of data from People Magazine? I mean, yeah, it's a fairly reliable source for some information (if anything, I'd consider it to be tertiary in its nature for WP:RS reasons). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't make any sense as it stands. Deb 21:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This article is about the 100 most beautiful people, the magazine 'People' already has this list compiled on their website, by publishing it on wikipedia, thats obviousy a blatent copyright infringment.
• Delete No explainations given as to what this is from, if it is indeed from people then its possible copyvio. Russeasby 11:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the biggest problem is the lack of perspective this article brings. There is no text explaining the rationale behind the list (and the source brings up a 404 error). -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:45, 13 May 2007 (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.