Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Supermodels

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 was delete. --Coredesat 07:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Supermodels

List of Supermodels (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This should be deleted and replaced by a category, in my opinion as the page adds nothing a category cannot Corpx 16:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete and do not replace with a category "Supermodel" is a much abused hypester's term, now used for just about any model who has been on a magazine cover and some who have not. Category:Supermodels was previously deleted. Piccadilly 19:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The list is already superceeded by Category:Female models, so the information is already organized there. In addition, "female model" is an objective term, wereas "supermodel" is subjective. Calgary 20:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This falls under the old "listcruft" list of don'ts and more don'ts, the truly indiscriminate list of blue links and nothing else about any of these people. If you see anyone on here who isn't in Category:Female Models, you can fix that up rather easily. Mandsford 20:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above. NHRHS2010 Talk 20:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This page could become more than a list of names, extra sourced data (dob, height, weight, contracts, wealth, nationality, and so on....) could be added, perhaps sortable tables. It is a relatively new page and I guess that it will improve with time. Snowman 22:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete My guess is that is would get worse with time, as people added ever more obscure names, with ever weaker claims to "Supermodel" status, just as happened with the category. Carina22 23:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and source better, each should be sourced to a media reference using the term "supermodel". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The list is potentially useful. Give the authors a chance to add sources and definition of "supermodel." I suspect as supermodel can be defined in terms of earnings. QueenAdelaide 06:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as having a hopelessly subjective standard of inclusion. It might be useful is not a compelling reason for inclusion. Otto4711 18:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Don't confuse truth with verifiability, the only requirement is that reliable media label them "supermodel", not that they actually are a supermodel by some complicated measure of their income and number of covershots. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, there really isn't a NPOV way of defining a supermodel and any such "extra sourced data" would probably start violating WP:BLP. Axem Titanium 20:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Calgary. "Female model" category is better, as it is objective. The information is clearer and more easy to access in the form of a category, IMO. bwowen talk•contribs•review me please! 13:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Look at the reference I added, it should be easy enough to identify where mainstream media identifies someone as a supermodel. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Highly notable people.--Bedivere 21:16, 22 August 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.