User:Allstarecho/Fuglies are not notable
|
This is a decree by the Gay Cabal of the English Wikipedia. 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 gay agenda wishes of the Gay Cabal. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Always delete ugly peoples' pages. They serve no purpose and make it harder to find lots of smokin' fair use images. This decree compliments WP:HOTTIE. |
| Inclusion guidelines |
|---|
|
UGLYNESS |
| Active proposals |
| See also |
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 exclude an article from being included: If the subject about which the article is written is downright ugly and even worse, fugly. A subject is presumed to be insufficiently 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 going blind as they walk past, then that's good enough for us.
General notability guideline[edit]
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 ugly. For example, as a general rule, girls named Bertha and Bessie are almost always ugly. Girls named Tiffany and Alicia... not so much.
- "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject's uglyness 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 ugly, not just with pounds of makeup on. For example, Will Ferrell is fucking ugly, even when au natural. Sources do not necessarily need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of uglyness, as it is plainly obvious to any casual viewer. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media.[2]
- "Fugly,"[3] provides the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources that identify the subject as "fugly" is key; the number needed varies depending on the depth of
nudecoverage 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 excluding 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. Scratch that. No ugly people, period.
Uglyness requires objective evidence[edit]
It is undeniable that people have an extremely broad span of what they consider to be "ugly." It is in the best interest of Wikipedia as a whole, then, to have people that have been determined as being ugly by an objective, trustworthy source that has a reputation for quality judging.[7]
Subjects not satisfying the uglyness guidelines[edit]
If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the uglyness of its subject, look for sources yourself.[8]
Uglyness is usually permanent[edit]
While very few people age like fine wine,[9] it is unfortunately the case that some also age more like, well... milk. An article about someone who once passed WP:HOTTIE can just as easily find itself suddenly up for deletion thanks to this decree here.
Uglyness guidelines do limit article content[edit]
Once a subject's uglyness 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 gouging their eyes out with heated forks. Not to mention the article should be Speedy Deleted.
See also[edit]
As with many long-winded Wikipedia guidelines, you're probably bored after reading all of this junk. Too bad. We'd like to provide you with links to articles about some exceedingly ugly people, but the no-fun brigade said doing so violates Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy.[10] We will note that we only allow these articles to remain on Wikipedia for educational purposes, so that you can see what ugly looks like. So good luck in your journey through Wikipedia. You're assured to come across such an article eventually... ...if your eyes can stand it and your brain doesn't throw up.
References/Notes[edit]
- ^ 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 ugly people are even worse.
- ^ Though nude photos or video of ugly people is never cool.
- ^ Caribbeans will know what we mean here
- ^ Again, nude photos are really not good.
- ^ Several journals simultaneously publishing photos about a subject, does not always constitute multiple works.
- ^ Of course, this is mostly bull, as some people do take really ugly pictures of themselves.
- ^ For example, me. No, not you. You have terrible taste.
- ^ Do I really have to mention nudies again? Okay, maybe I do.
- ^ ex. Halle Berry, Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp
- ^ Even though this isn't a biography page of any one individual and in line with sourcing requirements all one has to do is look at the ugly person's face for the source. Isn't it also interesting that WP:HOTTIE can have a list of people being called "hot" or "hottie" but that's not a BLP violation? Who says they are hot? Where's the source? Do any of them object to being called "hot"? Do any of them refer to themselves as "hot"? Source? Source?? Source!
As of this edit, this user space essay uses content from User:GlassCobra/Essays/Hotties are always notable, which is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. All relevant terms must be followed. The original user space essay was at User:GlassCobra/Essays/Hotties are always notable.