User:GlassCobra/Essays/Hotties are always notable

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a decree by the Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia (SCREW). It expresses opinions and ideas that are absolutely and irrefutably true whether you like them or not. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects the supreme wishes of the Supreme Cabal. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.
Shortcut:
WP:HOTTIE
This page in a nutshell: Never delete hot people's pages. They give us an excuse to include lots of smokin' fair use images.
Inclusion guidelines

HOTNESS
Notability
Academics
Books
Fiction
Films
Music
Numbers
Organizations
and companies
People
Web content
Active proposals

Relevance of content
See also

Common deletion
outcomes

Within Wikipedia, Notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity"; however, one important standard may also help an article be included: If the subject about which the article is written is smokin' hot. A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right, particularly the first.

If you notice the subject to the extent of getting a crick in your neck as they walk past, then that's good enough for us.

Contents

[edit] General notability guideline

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

  • "Presumed" means that the person can be presumed as being hot. For example, as a general rule, girls named Tiffany and Alicia are almost always hot. Girls named Bertha and Bessie... not so much.
  • "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject's hotness directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content, though it's strongly encouraged in this case. Significant coverage is more than trivial but can be less than exclusive.[1]
  • "Insignificant coverage" means that most pictures of the subject leave little to the imagination. The less left to the imagination the better.
  • "Reliable" means that the subject can be counted on to almost always look hot, not just with pounds of makeup on. For example, Anna Kournikova is gorgeous, even when au natural. Sources do not necessarily need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of hotness, as it is plainly obvious to any casual viewer. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media.[2]
  • "Sauce,"[3] provides the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources that identify the subject as "saucy" is key; the number needed varies depending on the depth of cleavage coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[4] Mere republications of a single source do not always constitute multiple works.[5]
  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[6]

A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of noticing, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.

[edit] Hotness requires objective evidence

It is undeniable that people have an extremely broad span of what they consider to be "hot." It is in the best interest of Wikipedia as a whole, then, to have people that have been determined as being hot by an objective, trustworthy source that has a reputation for quality judging.[7]

[edit] Subjects not satisfying the hotness guidelines

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the hotness of its subject, look for sources yourself.[8]

[edit] Hotness is usually temporary

While some people age like fine wine,[9] it is unfortunately the case that some also age more like, well... milk.

[edit] Hotness guidelines do not limit article content

Once a subject's hotness has been established, the article can basically say whatever the hell it wants. Nobody's going to actually read it. They'll be too busy checking out the hot person.

[edit] See also

As with many long-winded Wikipedia guidelines, you're probably bored after reading all of this junk. So here are links to articles about some exceedingly hot people:

   

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ For example, pictures of the subject can be of the subject by themselves, but they don't have to be exclusive. Pictures of the subject with other hot people are cool too.
  2. ^ Though nude photos are always cool. Thank God for Wikipedia not being censored!
  3. ^ Caribbeans will know what we mean here
  4. ^ Again, nude photos are really good.
  5. ^ Several journals simultaneously publishing photos about a subject, does not always constitute multiple works.
  6. ^ Of course, this is mostly bull, as some people do take really hot pictures of themselves.
  7. ^ For example, me. No, not you. You have terrible taste.
  8. ^ Do I really have to mention nudies again? Okay, maybe I do.
  9. ^ ex. Halle Berry, George Clooney, Catherine Zeta-Jones
  10. ^ Yes, I know, I mentioned her already -- but dammit, she deserves to be mentioned twice.
  11. ^ Everyone is gay for Bridget David!
  12. ^ He knocked me up, twice.