Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beautiful people

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous.

By strict vote count, I get 13 "delete" (1 anon discounted), 13 "keep" (2 anon or unsigned discounted), 6 "redirect", 2 "transwiki" and 4 that abstained or were too ambiguous to call. The article was expanded some during the discussion period but did not fundamentally change in tone or topic.

There were two suggested redirect targets - both presented fairly early in the discussion. Those arguing to redirect to a Marilyn Manson page did not support the retention of any of the current content. Those supporting a redirect to beauty were mixed.

Re-reading the current version, I find myself agreeing with the argument that even after expansion the verifiable content is nothing more than a dictionary definition - that is, a discussion of the definition, origins and usage of a word or phrase. I personally see very little possibility of further expansion. I can find no evidence that the term "beautiful people" (as described in this article) is a recognized concept or class in sociology.

I am going to call this one as a "no concensus" which defaults to keep for now.

Switching hats, I am now going to act as an ordinary editor and be bold in merging this with beauty. The beauty article discusses aesthetics and their implications across multiple dimensions, not merely human appearance. The social trend of mimicing those who are beautiful certainly seems to fall neatly into the section on Effects of beauty in human society. Rossami (talk) 23:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Beautiful people

If we allow this, we need to allow "Ugly people", "Fat people", "Smelly people", etc. Not encyclopedic Barfooz (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It could (doubtfully) be encyclopedic if it had an ounce of content, but it does not. I agree, delete. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
POV OR. Redirect to Antichrist Superstar. The Beautiful People is probably Marilyn Manson's most well-known song, and that's the album it's found on. AиDя01DTALK 00:47, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
- I will do this if the consensus is not to delete. -- Barfooz (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this encyclopedic stereotype, if sources can be cited. Kappa 01:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What's your response to my comment then? If this starts being allowed, it has no hope of ceasing. I'm okay with User:Android79's idea -- Barfooz (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Ugly people" is just "ugly" + "people", but "beautiful people" has a distinct meaning. Kappa 01:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I could write this same article about ugly people. I don't follow your logic. I don't think that "beautiful people" has more special connotations than any other "adjective people." I think the content needs to be totally redone, if it isn't totally deleted or redirected. -- Barfooz (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think the point is that beautiful people are not necessarily "beautiful". Beautiful people are what the current culture say are beautiful, not what the individual person's subjective esthetics see as beautiful. I found that [1] was enlightening. To compare, the term ugly people does not have the same kind of hidden meaning; they are just ugly :). Thue | talk 20:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Common phrase part of culture. See People Magagine's 50 Most Beautiful People edition for example [2]. Capitalistroadster 01:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because a sequence of two words is common, it doesn't merit an article. To extend your analogy, Time Magazine also has a "Man of the Year." Should we have an article called "Man of the Year" without any references to Time magazine? -- Barfooz (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a phrase in common use and has distinct cultural references ie People Magazine, Marilyn Manson song. Australian Crawl had a hit in Australia with the song Beautiful People referring to a jetsetting elite. Capitalistroadster 05:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be cited that illustrate that "beautiful people" differs from "beautiful" + "people."--Absurdist 02:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Distinct meaning: [3] Kappa 02:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Very well. Needs cleanup. - Barfooz (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also "How does it feel to be one of the beautiful people? Now that you know who you are." -Baby You're a Rich Man, The Beatles. The primary meaning is not fashion victims but the rich and powerful. cf: Le Beau Monde. It's a phrase with a history but this article is in serious need of cleanup. No vote. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could that be expanded beyond a dicdef? I'm not so sure. In any case, Wiktionary doesn't have a beautiful people entry yet. AиDя01DTALK 02:40, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    - It could mention that Marilyn Manson wrote a song about them :) Kappa 02:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, change vote to keep, but expand with references and history, and not just to Marilyn Manson.--Absurdist 03:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even if the beautiful people don't care. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:05, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
Delete: Dictdefs go in Wiktionary (the concept of the "beautiful people"), unless someone is going to chart its history (with references, and not just surmise). As a particular song by a particular artist, it would have to be redirected or at least moved to Beautiful people (song). Geogre 03:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Beauty -- Revolución 03:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopedic. Rick K`
Delete - it's not encyclopedic. Belongs under beauty if at all. Anyway, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and so os very subjective. Charlie123 11:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DJ Clayworth 05:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useable to Beauty. This article is inherently POV. Megan1967 06:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to beauty. Martg76 08:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Beautiful by whose standards? 'Redirect to beauty - Skysmith 08:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A lot of these votes seem to miss the point. "Beautiful people" aren't people who are endowed with beauty. It is a term used - often derisively - for what the Kinks so aptly dewscribed as dedicated followers of fashion. People who try to stay up with all the latest fads and fashioons. As such it is a perfectly valid stereotype and deserving of an article. It needs cleanup, not deletion. Grutness...wha? 08:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I got it, Grutness. The term derives from the 1960's, when it was a term for the "groovy" people. It was an in-group term by the Flower Power set. The beautiful people inevitably included the Carnaby Street folks. In the 1970's, the in-group flower child term got extended over to fashionistas and the "hip" of NYC. Anyway, from there it just got to be the "insiders" and "the chosen by the Bohemians," and from there "the perfection of cool." It could be discussed, but the problem is in writing about it with references and not just folk etymology and pop culture. Geogre 11:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inherently POV and pointless. Harro5 08:57, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unencyclopedic and pointless. — JIP | Talk 09:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, replace with redirect to Marilyn Manson's song. R adiant _* 09:55, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, common phrase with meaning not obvious from component words alone. Needs some cleanup. Christopher Parham (talk) 11:30, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
Delete, would either turn into a POV mess or a dic def for a unencyclopedic concept--nixie 11:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has nothing whatsoever to do with beauty, and everything to do with money, prestige, and power. It is very much a contemporary term. Denni ☯ 20:18, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
Escort it to the black limo waiting outside and swoosh it off to Wiktionary. -- Hoary 13:54, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with Grutness' argumentation that the term could have a wikipedia article, but the current one looks like original research and has no references. Do _not_ redirect to beauty. Thue | talk 20:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would keep the article but it does need to be expanded to be more than a dictionary definition. The term "Hippie" could also be a dictdef but, as written, the Wikipedia article on that term provides more insight into the word than a dictionary would be expected to provide. Although the term "beautiful people" is not as significant to the culture of the period as "hippie," it still could be more than a dictdef. And in my mind, while moving the article to Wicktionary may make sense if the article stays as it is, moving it to Beauty makes no sense because the term is not really about "beauty" notwithstanding the word "beautiful." DS1953 22:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DS1953. — P Ingerson (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Eeek. Barely a dictadef, as opposed to a simple combination of adjective and noun. Perhaps transwiki to wikionary? Sabine's Sunbird 00:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. --metta, The Sunborn 03:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- to Marilyn Manson. He has a popular song by this name. - Longhair | Talk 05:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep neat stuff as per Kappa. Klonimus 05:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, add info about Marilyn Manson song and other references, consider disambiguous tag. Don't merge. Internodeuser 13:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research. Leanne 05:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs expansion but seems to be a concept as opposed to an adjective. Vashti 09:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reason same as Barfooz. utcursch | talk 12:03, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Online Etymology Dictionary says under "beauty", "beautiful people. "The fashionable set" first attested 1964.". Also, the Hippyland Glossary describes "beautiful people" as "Used to described hippies or cool persons". I've heard both of these senses used; it's a phrase with a history and what looks like two conflicting standard meanings, not just an adjective + noun construct. However, it's going to need some serious research to expand the article. Vashti 12:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article is full of POV. The page on beauty describes it as a matter of perception and therefore anyone/anything could be viewed as beutiful. We already have a page on beauty so this is unnecassrary.
Comment The solution to POV content is to edit the content. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Change to clean up tag, possibly later to merge. Anyone have a sociology textbook handy?
Unsigned vote by Tznkai. 24.224.153.40 20:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 24.224.153.40 20:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After all the discussion on here I've decided to reverse my vote. Accordingly, I have added more content to the article, based off of comments by Geogre and Thue, and some poking around online. I think it's more appropriate now. -- Barfooz (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Barfooz, nice job. Kappa 19:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.