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. Singu larity 08:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of teen idols of the 2000s[edit]

Version at time of AFD-nomination: This is another PROD-nominee with an extensive (>500 edits) history involving multiple editors. The PROD nominator stated "this article is still inherently original research, and a magnet for POV pushing; there are also major issues of cultural bias". I agree that "POV magnets" need special watching over and I also agree that cultural bias is an issue here, but neither of these are reasons for deletion. The term "teen idol" might seem nebulous, but there is a definition in the teen idol article, which is referenced by the list and which serves as an inclusion criterion. My closing thought is that this requires cleanup and careful sentry work, but not deletion. However, I am unsure if that is the consensus endpoint - which is why I have converted the PROD to AFD rather than simply removing the PROD tags. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 17:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ? Nom didn't endorse deletion, but cleanup, and was seeing if that was consensus. Rigadoun (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: By my bringing it here, I am effectively asking for a broader consideration of whether or not the article should be deleted than the PROD pathway provided. I hope that clears up your confusion (as indicated by "?"). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I understood that, but didn't understand what "delete per nom" would mean in such a case. Rigadoun (talk) 07:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ahh, my apologies. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article Teen idol(another page with its own issues) contains some of the same list. The problem is that there will be way too much bias to maintain the page. It is also nearly impossible to meet the WP:V requirements. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per my original statement on the prod (not that I'm quarreling with the conversion of this to an AfD), and the concurrence of Gtstricky. It's a mess, it's inherently a mess, and there's no way to make it work. Look up idoru sometime; the concept is unstable, and incredibly vulnerable to bias, not just cultural but recentist bias as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a valid topic and is worth keeping in some way shape, or form. With that being said, there are serious issues needing attention, most of which are articulated above. Anything which isn't verifiable, is original research, or POV needs to be removed or refactored and the page needs a good lead-in section. If what remains is substantial enough for its own article, let it be, if not perhaps merging or making a sub-page of Teen Idol might be more appropriate. Mr Senseless (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepI put into a lot of effort to cleanup this article. Please don't delete it. Sure, this article needs some more serious work, but an outright deletion is not inappropriate.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This article is completely an opinion. Some people could be viewed as an "idol" to some but an idiot to others. See WP:NEUTRAL Tavix (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only way to establish that a member of the list truly meets the inclusion criteria (being a teen idol), is to source a poll which shows them to be highly idolized by teens. And then an arbitary limit would have to be set, which is against current policy and guidelines. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally POV and unmanageable. RMHED (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unencyclopedic. Addhoc (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. First define teen idol. Second, where would these idols be from (I'm sure that Japan has different idols than the UK or US). And third, it's WP:OR. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The definition of "teen idol" is available at Teen idol#What makes a teen idol?. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when I think of 50 Cent the first thing I think is teen idol. nothing but POV original research. Ridernyc (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Why not add every single professional athlete, as I am sure they are idolized by somebody? This really is a stupid article 68.162.132.205 (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Title and article doesn't make it clear whether it is talking about a decade, century or millenium. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, this one is not salvageable. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inherently POV. Just because one news report referred to a given singer as a "teen idol" doesn't actually make it a true, verifiable fact about her that she is a 'teen idol' - it makes it a true, verifiable fact that that news report called her a 'teen idol'.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That is the case for any news item, whether it is a label applied to a person or a temperature recorded during a snow storm - we are at the mercy of the validity of secondary sources because we are not at liberty to use primary sources; in this case, a primary source would be a poll that Wikipedian's ran to determine who is or is not a teen idol today while the secondary source is a news reporting of such a label. Unfortunate, but true. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it satisfies Wikipedia:Lists. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.