Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexiest Man Alive

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 KEEP - several suggestions to rename, or merge to People (magazine). Nabla 22:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexiest Man Alive

Sexiest Man Alive (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

POV list of celebrities, no source or context Clicketyclack 09:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  • No opinion on whether the list should be kept, but just noting that the version of the article as initially nominated was a vandalised one. I've restored the introduction that was removed by vandals. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-05-08 10:05Z
  • Delete This is a completely unsourced list that details one particular feature of a magazine. --Cyrus Andiron 12:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • merge/redirect to People Magazine article. Preferably just redirect until we can be sure the coverage there is accurate. But this is a quasi-notable feature they run (for whatever reason) so it is a term people will be searching for and wanting info on, and it could be sourced. --W.marsh 13:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: PLEASE read this explanation before casting your vote! This article can easily be sourced by referencing the specific issues in which each years candidate is announced, and while most features would not merit their own article, People's Sexiest Man Alive is a cultural phenomenon. Each year, the winner is discussed in many other magazines and television shows unrelated to People, both in the celebrity pop culture genre (Entertainment Tonight, The Soup, etc.) and other genres (eg, The Colbert Report). This indicates a significant impact on pop culture and wide name recognition for the feature. Also of note is the fact that 11 different Wikipedia biographies link to this page. While it may seem to some to not be important enough to merit an article, the number of pages linking here begs to differ, and remember, wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Definite keep. Zelmerszoetrop 13:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I guess. Vapid but notable feature in a vapid but notable magazine. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • keep and rename: The article should be sourced and renamed to People Magazine's Sexiest Man Alive. --Kimontalk 17:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and source --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename per Kimon, above. I'll check the companion piece for vandalism. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. If kept, rename per Kimon above. Carlossuarez46 19:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This may be celebrity pap, but it's notable celebrity pap. The award has been known to turn around careers. As for the name, I'm not certain that further disambiguation is necessary. How many "Sexiest Man Alive" awards are there, anyway? --Dhartung | Talk 20:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep & rename Per Kimon. --Random Say it here! 23:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename per Kimon. bibliomaniac15 00:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to User:JayHenry. Thanks! --JayHenry 04:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - very notable, easily sourced. - Peregrine Fisher 19:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment:
Part of the problem with this page is the title. After I AfD'd this list, User:Resurgent insurgent dug down a dozen changes, and discovered that the context had originally been established in the intro, but had long since vandalized been out, leaving just a list titled "Sexiest Man Alive", with no clue that it's a list of nominations by a magazine.
A list like that just begs for "contributions" from every boy that searches WP for "sexiest".
Please also note that People magazine is entirely unknown outside of the USA & Canada, and so likewise People's "SMA" list. Without the explicit context of it being a magazine feature, the list makes no sense whatsoever to anyone who's never been to the US - that is to say, most people on the planet. That could be seen as a {{Globalize/USA}} issue, but I can see now that the title is really the underlying problem.
So if consensus is that this list really is a notable feature of USA culture, and that this isn't a matter of WP mirroring content for People magazine, then it should be merged into People (magazine), or at the very least renamed, to stop its essential context being repeatedly removed. Thanks, Clicketyclack 08:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
One more thing: there's a related debate going on over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Most Beautiful People, though in that case the consensus so far is strongly for deletion, since its meaning as (another) People magazine celeb award was never mentioned for that article. Clicketyclack 11:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. How is this possibly deletion-worthy? I can understand if there may be some sort of cultural shift here, but this is no doubt a well-known thing that gets major press every year it's published. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see my comment above: it's only well-known in one country, and lacks context, press or notability for anyone from the rest of the planet. Clicketyclack 08:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see my comment above: it gets national mainstream coverage in one country only, and lacks context, coverage or notability for anyone from the rest of the planet. Clicketyclack 08:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
None of those are entirely relevant. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Imagine you're searching WP for "sexiest man alive", and it takes you to a list of men awarded that title annually by a magazine called Celebs, published only in New Zealand. The list consists almost entirely of celebrities from New Zealand, most or all of whom you've never heard of. It wouldn't make much sense to you, or to people from anywhere else outside of New Zealand. But the magazine is wildly popular there, and Wikipedians from New Zealand (WiKiwis?) might argue that the designation is very notable in their country, gets talked about on TV there, gets covered by the press there, etc. Is it encyclopedic material worthy of an article on WP? That's a matter for debate. But even if it is, the right thing to do with that list would be either a merge to Celebs (magazine), or at least a rename to Celebs Sexiest Man Alive list.
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias - Clicketyclack 12:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this is countering systematic bias - if you haven't heard about it outside of the US, it doesn't make it non-notable. If the NZ magazine's yearly list gets press in every major publication in NZ, then I'd defend the list's inclusion here as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't find much evidence of systemic bias against US pop culture on WP. :-)   Note that it's not nominated as non-notable, but as "POV list of celebrities, no source or context". Are you also opposing merging it to People (magazine)? Clicketyclack 13:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the point being is that the assumption that it's not notable because it allegedly only gets coverage in one country is the definition of systematic bias. The nomination, however, is completely spurious (nothing POV, unsourced, or uncontextual), and may have been based on a previously vandalised version. And yes, I'm strongly opposed to a merge. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, I haven't nominated it on grounds of non-notability, so no such assumption's being made. Also, the nomination is demonstrably not spurious:
  • POV: An encyclopedic entry on the sexiest man alive, assuming that that should be in WP, shouldn't be based solely on a nomination by a single magazine, especially one that's only published in one country.
  • Unsourced: I can find no sources cited in the article that People ever nominated any of them for SMA, or that Mel Gibson was the first winner, Clooney twice, etc. Nor can I find sources in any of the articles linked.
  • Context: Context has been restored to the article's body (though not the title) by User:Resurgent insurgent after nomination, though looking at the edit history that's highly likely to be deleted again. That problem could be fixed by merging, rather than deleting, as I've noted above. The other two remain grounds for a complete re-write or deletion. Clicketyclack 14:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to People (magazine), which created this list, and let the editors there decide how much detail is appropriate beyond a simple list with links. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 14:20, 15 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.