![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2008 September 29. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete. The primary argument by those !voting to keep was a reference to all the previous AFDs, but consensus can change. There were other weak arguments either way, but nobody has successfully refuted Scott MacDonald's point that the list is inherently subjective and the poor referencing leads to BLP issues. I've thought about this closure for quite a while and won't be changing it; DRV is thataway if you disagree. Stifle ( talk) 08:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is committed to three things: verification neutrality and fairness to living subjects. This article fails these tests, and indeed cannot pass them.
Basically this is a demeaning and sexist article of the worst kind of subjective internet trivia, unfit for an encyclopedia. True, that "I don't like it" isn't a reason to delete, but nor it "I like it" and I reason to keep. So we fall back on objective criteria WP:V WP:RS WP:NPOV and WP:BLP and by those policy standards this does not belong.
The last debates failed to achieve a deletion consensus, but maybe we've got a better understanding of neutrality and verifiability since then.
Scott MacDonald ( talk) 14:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply
![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2008 September 29. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete. The primary argument by those !voting to keep was a reference to all the previous AFDs, but consensus can change. There were other weak arguments either way, but nobody has successfully refuted Scott MacDonald's point that the list is inherently subjective and the poor referencing leads to BLP issues. I've thought about this closure for quite a while and won't be changing it; DRV is thataway if you disagree. Stifle ( talk) 08:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is committed to three things: verification neutrality and fairness to living subjects. This article fails these tests, and indeed cannot pass them.
Basically this is a demeaning and sexist article of the worst kind of subjective internet trivia, unfit for an encyclopedia. True, that "I don't like it" isn't a reason to delete, but nor it "I like it" and I reason to keep. So we fall back on objective criteria WP:V WP:RS WP:NPOV and WP:BLP and by those policy standards this does not belong.
The last debates failed to achieve a deletion consensus, but maybe we've got a better understanding of neutrality and verifiability since then.
Scott MacDonald ( talk) 14:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply