Deletion of List of sex symbols (4th nomination)

Comment: The consensus that is building here is that the label "sex symbol" is too subjective for a Wikipedia list, unlike, say, List of films considered the worst (which is based on broad consensus of reliable sources), and is applied indiscriminately. The label can raise BLP concerns due to its |POV nature, especially when unsourced or poorly sourced
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:POV)

Comment: There's no meaning or consistency.  There are various lists of sex symbols, and it's fine to cover and summarize them in various articles, separately.  But, we can't mix and match different sources using different criterion.  I don't want a lists of people who are stupid, ugly, pretty, dorky, nerdy, rude, polite, honest, dishonest, competent, incompetent, good, bad people etc...  I can find an endless abundance of sources for lists of each of these types of things, but the lists mean nothing.  A list of "sex symbols" is , as you're creating a fresh list, that no single source would ever put together, or approve of.  It's wanton misinterpretation to mix a source calling somebody a sex symbol because of their body, with somebody who bases it on their mind, or personality, or how they move, or how they dress, or maybe they just wanted to pay a compliment.  Just because two sources use the same literal words , does not always mean they are talking about the same thing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Today the term simply means "sexually attractive", which is applicable to 90% of young actresses, 100% of porn stars and 25% of male actors, and now this is nothing but a  term for a pretty celebrity.  This renders the list basically useless
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:PEACOCK)

Comment: per Cunard. Well sourced and has an encyclopaedic purpose. For complaints about there being too many people: . We aren't at the point of  - not even close. You can purge poor entries that don't meet , but I would note that each has 2 sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP||WP:TNT||WP:LISTCRITERIA)

Comment: Our policy regarding |lists of people says
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:LISTPEOPLE)

Comment: after giving this one some thought, while I think there's no issue with the ''notability'' of this list, there is a problem with  because I don't see a way to set an unambiguous inclusion criteria short of "has been called a sex symbol". Unfortunately that's a term that people, including reliable sources, throw around without a lot of clarity about what they mean other than that, well, they think someone is attractive. And if that's the case, why wouldn't we include synonyms? Include "sexiest man/woman alive" lists and "heartthrobs" and "hunks" and "babes"? What's the difference? The closest thing I can think of to a sensible criteria is to only include people in sources that are about the concept of "sex symbols" (maybe even limited to scholarly literature). That's potentially problem prone in itself, and probably sufficiently limiting that it couldn't get buy in among those who would edit such a page, so I wind up as weak delete. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:SALAT)

Comment: now that it has been turned into a well referenced list with prose descriptions the reasons for deletion seem to have been countered and we should certainly not delete articles because of disruptive editing, page protection is the answer to that problem. The reliable sources coverage shows the article passes  and with a sensible inclusion criteria such as only permitting entries that have been classed as sex symbols by reliable sources over a span of say ten years would avoid celebrity pr coverage from expanding the list unnecessarily. Such an inclusion criteria would prevent the page being expanded too much. Finally criticising the prose such as  mini-essays is not correct as this is the sort of prose that is included in featured lists so is totally acceptable. Overall then I can't see a policy based reason for deletion remaining that is valid in any way, in my opinion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)