Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers (5th nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 No consensus achievable with this AfD as there is an assertion that the nomination is in bad faith and making a point, the behaviour of the nominator during this afd tends emphasise this conclusion. That behaviour doesnt then permit others with a differing view to act in the same fashion.

Wikipedia shouldnt be defining cirteria, inclusion in the list should be based solely on a third party reliable source that defines the performer as big busted providing that has occured it doesnt matter whether the person is 34DD or 12A. Gnangarra 10:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of big-bust models and performers

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of big-bust models and performers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The inclusion criteria for this list is too subjective. Deciding which models and performers belong on the list has led to disagreements and edit-warring. Epbr123 00:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as a Big Bust genre, and yes, it's easy to determine if a model/performer's career is based on that genre. I've monitored this list for months and the only edit-warring as to inclusion on this list has come recently, and from the nominator. Attempts were made to assume that his mass-removals were in good faith, but it now appear to have been to make a WP:POINT. Dekkappai 00:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Dekkappai has stated himself at Talk:List of big-bust models and performers that the inclusion criteria is subjective. Epbr123 00:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, how big is "big bust" anyway? Far too subjective, and bordering on WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "How big is big" has nothing to do with it. There are videos, films, magazines, etc. that deal with the Big Bust genre. A performer or model either appears in them, or she doesn't. How funny does a comedian have to be to be called a comedian? Dekkappai 00:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is a big-bust film defined? How many big-bust films does an actress have to appear in to be considered a big-bust genre actress? Epbr123 00:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • These are bad faith, leading questions, as they were only beginning to be discussed at the article, after you instigated the edit-war. No comment. Dekkappai 00:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can stripping count as big-bust entertainment? What is the difference between a big-bust genre stripper and a stripper with a big bust? Epbr123 01:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • These questions do NOT merit deletion. Bring it up on the talk page. The fact that you were in the middle of heated discussions and/or edit wars on exactly this point make it absolutely clear that this AfD nomination was made in bad faith. --Cheeser1 08:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, recommend immediate bad-faith nomination closure - This is a clear WP:POINT nomination - User:Epbr123 and User:Dekkappai are the participants in the edit war Epbr123 is using as justification to delete this. One cannot both start an edit war and then nominate to delete based on there being an edit war. This is a clear classic POINT violation and the AFD should be closed. Georgewilliamherbert 00:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a POINT comment based on a disagreement between Georgewilliamherbert and myself on another AfD. Epbr123 00:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am reviewing all your AFD activity out of concern for your recent actions, but the issue here is very specifically that you have both started the edit war and are POINTily using it as an AFD excuse. This is a clear Wikipedia policy violation. Admin rules keep me from either closing this AFD myself or taking administrative action against you for the POINT violation here, as we are engaged in the other dispute, but these are unrelated issues and problems. Anyone looking at the article talk page and history will clearly see your numerous edits, which prove that this nomination is POINT. I am amazed that you didn't think it would apply to you here. Georgewilliamherbert 01:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In my defense (not that it matters) I have not participated in the edit war, and made efforts to prevent it by talking it out. Dekkappai 00:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete No argument to keep it except WP:ILIKEIT. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 02:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to bad faith nomination - this nomination was made in response to an edit war. It should not be deleted as a result of this bad faith nomination, regardless of whether or not it qualifies for deletion. If there was a discussion going already about this, it should have been resolved at the article. Storming off to get the article deleted is not an appropriate response to a disagreement. --Cheeser1 03:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Who are we to decide what's a "big-bust"? This is WP:OR Corpx 05:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with User:Cheeser1 and, I have to say, User:Dekkappai. It is very difficult to assume good faith here; the nominator has engaged in multiple attempts to strip down the article to uselessness, got involved with at least two edit wars in this very article, and has been on a rampage of AfDs regarding the subjects of this and similar articles. If the article needs improving, then let's improve it. A deletion request -- the fifth one -- is wholly unnecessary here and smacks of him not getting his way, and thus wants to tear the whole thing down. See the history and talk pages of this article for more information. Color me not at all surprised with this development. Xihr 07:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the hope of avoiding an AfD, I attempted to clean up the article and make the inclusion criteria more objective. However, the ensuing edit wars and unresolvable differences over what constitutes big-bust entertainment meant that an AfD was necessary. Even my removal of obviously non big-bust entertainment models, such as Keyshia Cole, were reverted. I then attempted to work with the more reasonable editors of this article here to establish more objective criteria. However, even if there was agreement on this, this decision itself would have been subjective, eg. what proportion of a porn stars films should be big-bust films for her to be considered a big-bust pornstar? All her films? Half her films? A dozen films? One film? After the discussions on the talk page reached a dead end, it was clear to me that it is impossible to make this list objective. Epbr123 09:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. You removed the obviously wrong entries as part of a mass deletion, removing many other non-obviously wrong entries, and they were reverted for the obvious reason that such mass deletions were not justified. Pointing to the legitimate deletions -- what, two? -- in response to all of this is a smokescreen (those deletions were quickly sustained). When attempts were made to ask you what you were up to, no justifications were given. This repeated with no answers ever forthcoming, only more leading, unending questions for those who were trying to keep the article from being defaced. The end result was this nomination for AfD, which is hard to see how is anything other than in bad faith. This is all readily visible in the history for the article and the talk page. Xihr 10:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that you and others were unable to work towards a definitive answer on exactly how the list is defined is not reason for you to storm off and get the article deleted. Working towards resolution of these issues may take time, often lots of time. Deleting the article in the meanwhile is not appropriate. --Cheeser1 10:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to bad faith nomination I agree with User:Cheeser1 entirely.Darkcraft 12:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Quite a few WP:AGF violations are occuring here. This is all my fault for trying to improve the article first. I should have AfDed it straight away. Epbr123 12:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your actions make it virtually impossible to assume good faith. You entered an discussion, the discussion turned bad, and rather than work towards consensus, you AfD'd the article because you couldn't have it your way. And this is one of two separate abuses of the AfD process this week. WP:AGF tells us that we should assume good faith, not that we should blindly assume good faith. Your actions speak for themselves. You've also made an interesting point by assuming that we have not assumed good faith (see WP:AAGF). We're here to contribute (positively and non-disruptively) to Wikipedia. You have used the AfD process disruptively, twice this week. We're trying to fix it, and the first step is to identify the problem: bad-faith AfD nominations. You seem to think that we're assuming bad faith at random or out of spite, when in fact we are drawing the only conclusion we can, given your disruptive misuse of the AfD process to make points. --Cheeser1 12:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Rypcord. 13:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rypcord (talk • LBNcontribs)

    • You need a valid reason. Epbr123 13:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Never had to before in other AF'ds, but ok: Its a noteworthy list with information for people who would like to access it. The Rypcord. 13:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
        • It's an unencyclopedic list as it's to difficult to judge who counts as a big-bust model or performer. Epbr123 13:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Doesn't the list cite its requirements? If so, then its quite easy to judge who counts. -Do they meet requirements? Yes, add them. No? Don't add them. Simple. The Rypcord. 13:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rypcord (talk • contribs)
            • For example, should Stacy Valentine be included? If not, why not? If so, why? Epbr123 13:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Her bio states she has a 34DD bust. Thus meeting the requirements of the article, thus she should be included, like she currently is. I fail to see your point. I also fail to see why you're being so aggressive against this article. The Rypcord. 13:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply to my questions first. The Rypcord. 13:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rypcord (talk • contribs)
    • Epbr, your line of questioning is irrelevant and pedantic. This is not the place to consider specific instances of who is or is not included on this list. Such minutia have nothing to do with this AfD, and is distracting us from constructive discussion of this issue (unless of course, you're only trying to prove an unrelated WP:POINT). --Cheeser1 14:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close bad faith nomination. I cannot, in good conscience, support this AFD, regardless of my beliefs regarding the article's clear and present original research violations as painfully indicated by the lack of definitive criteria. We are not here to decide what a "big bust" is, but we are to report what the "big bust" genre niche is. There is a difference. This article, as it presently stands, is wholly worthy of deletion. (To be honest, there have been better articles with more substance that have been expunged.) Having said this, I cannot vote to delete the article as it stands presently because this is a bad-faith nomination on the nominee's part, and no process on Wikipedia should be about placing the contributor before the contribution.) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 15:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I should note that this page should really be titled "7th nomination", and not "5th". -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 15:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. Isn't this really the sixth? (I see a duplicate second.) Xihr 22:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, a bad faith nomination is where a nomination is made despite the nominator knowing the article is valid. On the other hand, you want the article kept despite knowing it should be deleted. Epbr123 15:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's more than one way a nomination can be made in bad faith. --Cheeser1 16:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Epbr123, It's not what you're trying to do that's the issue here, it's how you're going about doing it. To be honest, I still have some hope that the article can be made into something that has both a neutral point of view and does not contain original research from Wikipedia's editors. I'm more for reworking the article than for deleting it, provided that it meets the notability criteria, in which this article does. Since "big-bust" is a large niche (no pun intended) of pornography and, indeed, the very crux of breast fetishism in general, it is important that the list of big-bust models and performers remain here. What should have been done, instead of throwing this at articles for deletion for the 7th (not 5th) time, is brought this to the attention of the porn project and tried to get people from there to chime in. Many of them are very level headed and should have been given the opportunity to address these issues. However, instead, contributors weren't. So the means you've employed do not justify the end result, which is why, in good conscience, I "voted" that the seventh nomination be dismissed. I should also note that the fact that this article has survived repeated nominations does lend to the need of such an article, as there is interest in the subject at hand. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 17:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You've had three years to sort this article out, and six previous warnings that the article is close to deletion. I too would like this article to become a legitimate list, but it's never going to happen. Epbr123 17:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You, on the other hand, seem to have first edited this article just four days (not three years!) ago, and then you did it with a mass deletion of names without even mentioning the prospect first in the article's talk page. Thereby sparking an edit war, and much ire against you, and a discussion of criteria which you did not seem interested in settling (would have been difficult even if you had, what with all of that ire). Instead you merely challenged every criteria and example offered (while continuing to revert any attempts to restore the entries you'd removed). Soon you unilaterally concluded that "it must always be subjective, therefore the page has to go," after having effectively sabotaged the discussion that might have reached an objective set of criteria. I see no good faith effort here. Anyway, it seems to me that the article was quite adequately "sorted out" before you got there. Jeh 18:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Good faith or not, I really do not know. But I do know that Wikipedia is NOT a repository for indiscriminate information (or some such). And this looks just like such indiscriminate trivia to me. Marcus22 15:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. 5th Nomination? Clearly someone has an agenda here to delete this page, and may be that person should know when to stop. I have no problem with a list of big bust models and performers....if they didn't exist, and there wasn't an interest in them, there we would not need a page. Clearly there is an interest in these performers, so the page is deserved. Deathlibrarian 16:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Possibly works better as a category, but it's an interesting list...-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Like it or not, the porn industry is a significant part of the U.S. economy and the big-bust category is a significant and, dare I say, obvious part of it. Perhaps the page needs to be renamed and refactored to be a description of the sub-genre, with the list as merely a part. Inclusion on the list can be determined by the performer's movies being listed in this category in catalogs, etc. Jeh 16:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What if a performer has made 300 movies and only one of them is included in the big-bust category? Would that be enough for them to be classed as a big-bust performer? Decisions like that make the article too subjective. There are many examples of these performers here. Epbr123 16:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So in one sentence you propose a completely objective criterion, and in the next you say that criterion would be "too subjective"? Seems excessively argumentative. Jeh 17:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's one of the reasons I stopped working on the article and nominated it. It was possible to create a subjective criteria (ie. an appearance in one big-bust film), but I later realised that the decision on what the criteria should be was itself subjective, ie. why one film and not two? Epbr123 17:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you pursue that line of "reasoning" you'll find that a great many things turn out to be "subjective" after enough iterations. There's a big difference between a criterion, and the criteria for accepting a criterion. That the former is subjective does not mean the latter is. Jeh 17:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're the only one here who thinks the criteria are objective. Epbr123 19:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Actually I'm not addressing that point at all. You (according to your posts in the talk page) started the AfD because you decided that any criteria must be subjective, on the grounds that the decision to accept a given set of criteria would be subjective. That's not a valid conclusion. Jeh 19:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • It is certainly a reason to delete. If we make up our own criteria for what constitutes a big-bust porn star, this article is original research. Epbr123 19:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Wikipedia has made up its own -- or made the subjective decision to adopt well-known -- criteria for many things, such as notability and reliable sources. How is this different? Jeh 19:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The purpose of notability and reliable source guidelines are to prevent original research. Their existence can't be used as an excuse to allow original research. Epbr123 19:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Agreeing to use criteria that are (for example) already used in the porn industry is not "original research." If a performer works in or is advertised in a "big bust" context the decision is clear and not at all OR. Jeh 19:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • As I stated before, what if only 1% of a performers movies are big-bust movies? Does this make them a big-bust performer? Epbr123 20:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • As has been pointed out to you before, this is not the place to discuss exact criteria or marginal cases. If you were genuinely interested in that discussion, I think you should have pursued it on the article's talk page, not aborted the discussion with an AfD. However, I'd say yes. It's easy to throw rocks at a "more than 10%" or "more than 10 films" or whatever number as "subjective," and perhaps it is, but "1 or more" (not 1% or more, ONE or more) seems to me to be very objective. Jeh 20:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                            • This is the place to discuss the criteria and about half the people on the list are marginal. The article's lead says the list is for people who are known for performing in big-bust adult entertainment. Does one movie really make some known for being a big-bust performer? Epbr123 20:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                              • No, the talk page is the place to discuss the criteria. But this particular point can be addressed by changing the text to "people who have performed in...", or perhaps "people have been featured in..." As I said previously, somewhere, I actually think the article should be changed to describing the genre, and include the list as part of a larger article. Jeh 20:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                • MOS would prohibit the combination of a long list and a main article. There's already an article on breast fetishism. Epbr123 22:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • You do realize that all of this should have been discussed on the article's talk page before it was nominated for deletion. The fact that this conversation is not happening there has to do with the fact that Epbr refuses to acknowledge the deletion process. He should have worked with other editors instead of AfD'ing it because he was impatient and unwilling to work towards compromise or accept a less-than-perfect set of criteria for inclusion (Wikipedia is not perfect, and never will be, let's try to move on from there). --Cheeser1 10:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that there is dispute over the inclusion criterion does not warrant wholesale deletion of the page. --FranchisePlayer 19:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that there is dispute over the inclusion criterion shows that this article is nothing more than original research. Epbr123 19:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, please. The fact that there is dispute over the inclusion criteria show that it should be discussed more on the talk page. Not summarily put up for AfD. Much of Wikipedia runs on "consensus" -- what is "consensus" if not a mutual agreement on a subjective decision? After all if there were objective facts to begin with consensus would occur automatically (at least among all those who knew the facts). Jeh 19:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If a list has subjective inclusion criteria, it is original research and therefore unencyclopedic. Epbr123 20:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, yes... you've said this half a dozen times now, at least. So let's fix the criteria (and not give up after four days). Jeh 20:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:OR does not say "if an article contains any original research, it must be immediately AfD'd," does it? No. It says to fix the article. You tried, and when the discussion after a couple days wasn't suiting you, you AfD'd the thing. That's not how it goes. WP:OR isn't carte blanche to delete anything you think is OR. --Cheeser1 08:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly, Rome wasn't built in a day - and neither were many of these women. The Rypcord. 22:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rypcord (talk • contribs)
  • I love how Epbr123 has changed the requirements to be included from just being a DD model/performer; which the article states; to that of someone having performed or modeled for big-bust movies/magazines/etc. The Rypcord. 21:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete again. Definition of "big" is still arbitrary, most of these have zero truly credible sources anyway, and this article is canonical breastcruft - we are not Boobpedia, and simply having silicon injected does not actually make anyone worthy of anything. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The fact that it includes the fake-breasted Daphne Rosen and similar others but doesn't include beautiful chicks like Aneta Buena, Alicia Loren, Sara Stone, Bea Flora etc is criminal in my book, but we don't decide what our sources choose to make notable...-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and User:TenPoundHammer. It appears that the Keep !votes virtually all are procedural ones, and don't discuss the validity of the actual article itself. - fchd 07:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correction as I count it, there are 7 votes to keep based on reasons related to the article, 3 related to this nomination being clearly in bad faith (which is valid), and 1 request for summary closure (for the same bad-faith related reason). --Cheeser1 07:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can only see nine keep !votes at all - 4 based on the validity of the article Dekkappai, Rypcord, Deathlibrarian and Jeh, 3 based on procedural reasons, Cheeser1 (yours!), Xihr and Darkcraft. and 2 based on other reasoning, hisspaceresearch and Franchiseplayer. I take back the "virtuall all" part of my statement, but it still remains a fairly high proportion.
        • The difference between 3/10 and 3/9 is 1/30. The difference in our count is irrelevant - at least two thirds of the "keeps" are not procedural, and while 1/3 may seem like a "high proportion" you have to realize that this user AfD'd the article because consensus wasn't going his way. That's a gross violation of policy and this nomination was made in seriously bad faith. I would expect it to come up in this AfD, and it is a valid reason to either "keep" the article or summarily close the AfD (ie keep). --Cheeser1 08:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The !votes so far are 6 delete, 3 keep per procedural reasons, and 6 keep despite it being original research. Epbr123 09:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Stop making inflammatory comments. Characterizing votes as "keep despite it being original reserach"? How about we call your vote "delete despite the fact that it's obviously enecylopedic" or "delete because I'm too hard-headed to cooperate with others"??? Would that be fair or civil? NO. Stop being argumentative and deliberately insulting. It's out of line, and this is one of many places you've stepped over the line in the past week. Regardless of your editorial activities, I'm tired of asking you to follow policies like WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, and so forth. --Cheeser1 10:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • "6 delete, 3 keep per procedural reasons, and 6 keep despite it being original research" Hahahahahaha. That reminds me of Stephen Colbert, who says that their are two kinds of politicians in the U.S....Republicans and "cowards"! By the way, y'all realize that AfD is not a vote, right? Because, if it were, then either side could sockpuppet themselves into victory, right? --71.191.166.249 13:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment By some metrics, this is the fifth most popular article on all of Wikipedia. I'm not sure how much of this is about how indefinable the criteria is, as opposed to just not wanting to deal with it.--BigCow 09:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, and WP:NOT#DIR. Ceoil 10:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as bad faith nomination and make sure every single angry mastodon here gets a lesson in not being a dick, especially the nominator, who looks to me like he's just arguing for the sake of arguing. Good God, this has got to be the longest AfD I've seen in which nothing has been said!! --71.191.166.249 13:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No-one has yet denied the article is original research. Epbr123 14:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what if it does? That's a reason to fix it, not to delete it. See, nominating an article for deletion just because it has fixable problems would be like me suggesting that you be banned because of this farce of an AfD nomination that you've created here. --71.191.166.249 14:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Welcome to the herd. It's not merely a problem of it containing small sections of OR. The whole thing is OR. As shown by the examples I have already given, deciding who is a big-bust star is very subjective. Epbr123 14:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Regarding bad faith etc. then I think we should ignore it and argue the case on its own merit. Epbr is of course allowed his viewpoint that the article should be deleted instead of being mended as he initially tried. Problem regarding who to include is not grounds for deletion, but for discussion - although this discussion could conceivably end with us having no way to establish who to include or not without using original research almost all the time. Personally, I think the problem can be solved, and although I do not find much interesting encyclopedic knowledge in the article, I don't see the harm in it either. Lundse 15:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Nomination was made in bad faith. It's a genre in porn like action is in film 81.153.49.180 15:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good lord, how many times does an article need to be nominated? As always, if there's an issue regarding citing, etc. that's a content issue to be handled within the article. The idea of the article is sound and it's worth noting the lack of redlinks, and given the anti-adult entertainment bias on Wikipedia which sees most porn articles go to AFD within days of creation (if not hours), that means most of those included have probably already passed the acid test, making them notable enough to have articles. There's even a length introductory section giving the list context, which is something most list articles lack. If accusations of bad faith are true, then this nomination should be closed. 23skidoo 16:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as bad faith nomination as stated by Joe Beaudoin. Tabercil 16:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin Please ignore these bizarre bad faith claims. I have no idea what they refer to and they seem to be being used as a way to keep the article despite it being original research. Epbr123 17:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here's another example of how difficult it will be to make this subjective. Jezebelle Bond has B size breasts but one of her movies has boobs in the title, Boobs Of Hazzard 2. Does this make her a big-bust performer? And I didn't ask this question in bad-faith, whatever the hell that means. Epbr123 18:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You fail to see the point. The article states any model or performer with a bust of DD . It has no requirement of movie credits, films, books, magazines, pornos, etc. "Does Person A have a bust of DD ?" If yes, include them, if no, don't include them. Its that simple. The article itself states the requirements for inclusion. Whats so subjective about that?The Rypcord. 18:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of this is red-herring nonsense, meant to distract from the issue at hand. The subjectivity of the list is something to be resolved by discussing it on the list's talk page, not here. The fact that the list might be subjective is something that needs to be fixed. Find me a policy that says "if an article is ever subjective, in any way, it must be deleted, not fixed." Hint: you won't find one. --Cheeser1 18:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The point is that the article will always be subjective. I was hoping for this AfD to be a discussion on whether that was indeed true; instead it's descended into this "bad-faith" crap. Epbr123 19:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's because such a discussion belongs on the article's talk page. If you were trying to make a point about the subjective nature of the criteria, you should have done it on your own, on the article's talk page. Not here, disruptively. In fact, such a discussion was going on. When people disagreed with you, you decided to AfD the article. That's 100% bad faith. --Cheeser1 19:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It belongs here because if it is subjective, it should be deleted. It's driving me mad having to repeat myself over-and-over. Yes, I am making a point: it should be deleted. No-one disagreed with my criteria proposed on the talk page, except myself. Epbr123 19:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Can I propose the compromise that the discussion of subjectivity is relevant for whether this should be deleted if the question is whether the article will ever be objective/NPOV? If we were never able to make a good, sourced claim within the list, then it should get deleted. But just that it is difficult and in some cases impossible, does not mean it should get deleted? If we can agree on this, we can move on to discuss whether such objective crieria are possible (something which should probably have started on the talk page, but which is also relevant regarding deletion). PS: I believe it is possible, but do not see the article as holding much promise for ever becoming good reading (hence, "weak keep"). PPS: regarding bad faith on when what was done, then it would be great if we could "wipe the slate". But if there is enough cause not to, so be it (I won't judge on this, I did not follow this from the start). Lundse 21:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I nominated the article for deletion because the discussion on the talk page, regarding the inclusion criteria, convinced me that the article will never be objective. The broad criteria, which there is consensus on, is that each person on the list has to be marketed as a big-bust genre models or performer. Determining what counts as that marketing is what leads to the subjectivity. There is agreement that a performer who appears in big-bust genre porn movies is marketed as a big-bust performer. This is a good objective criteria when a performer only appears in big-bust movies. However, when only a very small proportion of a performer's movies are in the big-bust genre, it is unclear whether this counts as being marketed as a big-bust star. Similar subjectiveness is involved when judging whether porn magazine models, Page 3 girls, strippers and actresses in non-porn big-bust movies are marketed as big-bust entertainers. Epbr123 22:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • This discussion on a similar topic may help give you more background info on the debate. Since that discussion, I've realised the criteria suggested by User:AnonEMouse are too subjective for the above reasons. Epbr123 23:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • This is, not surprisingly, a bogus argument, and seems to be a smokescreen. Subjectivity is involved in everything -- all of Wikipedia's guidelines as to appropriateness of content (WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, etc.) have subjective elements to them. Is a company notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article? What does its net worth need to be to qualify? $100M? $1B? The choice is arbitrary, and different people will disagree on where the line should be drawn. By your reasoning, all articles on companies should be deleted because the dividing line is subjective, which clearly indicates that the argument is ridiculous. The mere subjectivity of some criteria is not a reason to delete an article; it is a reason to discuss the criteria and work out the borderline cases. You've never made any attempt to do this, and have just been disruptive. (Now you're being disruptive again by adding a bunch of bogus entries.) Xihr 22:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are ample reliable sources available to justify the inclusion of this list. RFerreira 19:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As was obvious by your latest attempt to edit the article EPBR123... you cannot change what the requirements are for inclusion. It seems THAT is what you are truly mad about. You are mad because the list includes all models of DD , not just ones who are in the big-bust genre like you would like. All anyone needs to do is check the history of the page and see your latest attempts at changing the page to see your true motivations for this deletion or changes to the article. The Rypcord. 22:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a very popular (read notable) genre and the list is verifiable by reliable sources. --Oakshade 23:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have explained many times here why it is not as simple as that. Please read my comments. Epbr123 23:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why should he read your comments? All they are - are inflammatory, badgering, rude, and monotonous. They are repetitive pieces of liberal garbage in which all it is - is you constantly passing off your comments as truths when they are not. We (by this, I mean the 20 people) have seen through you and have noticed WHY you Af'd this and many other articles. You are truly pathetic. The Rypcord. 00:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial open ended list that belongs as a category. The only reason to use a list here would be to shove a bunch of fair use photos into 1 article which is against policy. Besides this is Wikipedia not Boobpedia, and certainly not Pornopedia.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. It's as notable as many of the other topics that are explored at great length and in great detail on Wikipedia, if not moreso. (Pokèmon, anyone?) I agree with Joe in that this article needs a lot of reworking, but it's certainly one that will be worth having once it's been improved. I also agree that this nomination for deletion was made in bad faith. In addition, I have been greatly amused watching Epbr drive himself into a frenzy while trying to derail every comment. You made your points, dude. Let it go; The only place you're getting with all this fury is an early grave. --Slander 19:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - fix the OR, fix the inclusion criteria, these are not reasons to delete. I havn't really seen any reason to delete. --Rocksanddirt 20:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reasons for nomination appear to be content related; this is one of the most visible pages, period, that Wikipedia has to offer. I disagree that the criteria are too subjective, and alas almost ALL of our guidelines for inclusion are subjective but that surely isn't a valid reason to delete a list which the community has demonstrated, time and time again, that they wish to retain. Burntsauce 22:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're the only person here who has said the criteria aren't too subjective. I trust you've read the thread and not just made your mind up from looking at the article. There are very subtle and complex problems with the article which casual observers will find difficult to notice. Epbr123 23:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are not obligated to reply to every single vote. Please consider the fact that just maybe someone can disagree with you without need to be told that they are wrong, especially when you assume that they haven't read the article thoroughly enough. This person has made a perfectly valid point - this is a content dispute, which is not an AfD-qualifying problem. --Cheeser1 01:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Content dispute is not a reason for deletion. AfD nominations should mention at least one of the deletion criteria. Jackaranga 08:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia", "Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources", "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed", and "Overcategorization". Epbr123 08:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Although I do recognize that these comments on every vote is not the "done thing", then I must say I do understand Epbr's frustration. He is arguing that the content dispute is unsolvable, and that nigh-all possible content is unsourcable. Few people respond to this, but attack the strawnman-Ebpr whom they fit with the argument "The current content dispute means we should delete the article". Even if Epbr has/is claiming this, his stronger argument still stands and it is this we should address. I personally believe that we can find a good compromise on what to include in this list, by basing it directly on a consensus definition of the "big bust"-genre. There are problems, sure, but I do not believe they invalidate the entire article. But this is not a given (although I would say it is the default opinion that sources can be found) and it is the point on which me and Epbr disagree - this does not make him an idiot to be ignored and I would not want anyone closing this AfD to take me serious if I did not address his claims! Lundse 08:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply/Comment: You have made some very good points here. However, I feel I must point out that this AfD has become about the contributor/nominator and not the article, and as such should be jettisoned. It is a mess, started by Epbr123's bad faith nomination: he edits the article for, essentially, four days -- instigating a possible edit war in the process -- and then unilaterally decides that the article cannot be salvaged and decides to throw it on AfD once he doesn't get "his way" in addressing the issues of the article. Admittedly, while Epbr123 is not the only "guilty" one here, it's hard to stay clean when trying to clean up a mess of this magnitude. (To put it bluntly and with forthright honesty, this is quite possibly one of the most messiest situations I have ever seen on Wikipedia since I began contributing.) Also, I should note that the RfC in process evaluates the actions of not only Epbr123 in this matter, but the actions of the editors involved as well, should it be deemed necessary. Given that there is no such thing as "pure innocence" and "pure guilt", this is to be expected.-- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 17:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are right about the switch in focus here, of course. On your other points about Epbr's action, I am pleeding "no contest". I am not going to investigate this, nor have I ever tried to - I will let others judge this part. I just pointed out something I have observed on this AfD, which has become quite messy, yes. Lundse 20:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict) Comment I do appreciate your attempt to see good faith in Epbr123's actions and attitude, Lunds. However, because of the number of editors he has angered (I was beginning to think it was only me for a while), I believe it is Epbr123 who has brought this on himself. Even now, after inspiring outrage from many editors, and while in the midst of an RfC, he continues to AfD in the category, even articles such as this one which he AfD'ed and lost a few months ago. (At this time in his career he was AfDing up to a dozen articles a day in the category. Other editors and myself were offering counter-arguments, and generally winning. He has beat us now though, because of the ease with which an AfD can be started, and the time and research required to counter one. So now, by persisting in these mass-AfDs, he gets more and more scalps for his trophy wall.) The points that you bring up, and that Epbr finally brought up, seem to me proof that this whole mess is nothing but a WP:POINT. If he thought the page's criteria were ill-defined, he should have said so and engaged in a discussion. Instead, he unilaterally mass-removed names (and mass-AfD'ed articles in the category), and instigated an edit war. By the time any discussion started, he had angered every regular editor of this article. Still, I never reverted him and attempted to find good faith (which was not openly shown) and engage him in discussion. When it looked like the discussion was not leading to his WP:POINT (namely: There is no big-bust genre, and the article should be deleted), he broke off discussion without comment, and AfD'ed the article. Throughout the AfD discussion, as he does with every AfD discussion, he seems to engage in a sort of POV Socratic dialogue, which may be fine in the classroom but is condescending and seems to imply his ownership of the article/category. My suggestion, in the conversation in which he quickly broke off when it seemed to be going good, was going to be to look at outside sources for a good definition of the genre. Instead he seems to attempt to bait editors into emotional outbursts and defies them to come up with their own definition, which he then knocks down. This may be a good method for appearing to win arguments, but is not the Wikipedia method, and the majority of Wikipedians do not believe it should be. Dekkappai 18:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - cannot ever be sourced as written; needs to be destroyed and restarted from scratch. Valrith 00:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A little history. In reviewing for comment at the nominator's RfC, I came across several instances in which he directly contradicts the assertions under which he started this AfD. For example:
  • On August 7: In this edit he re-worded the Category:Big-bust models and performers so: "This is a list of women primarily known for modeling or performing in the big-bust genre of erotic entertainment." Probably a good edit, I believe, but one which implies the existence and verifiability of the big-bust genre, which he now claims to be undefinable. However, he then used this edit to immediately begin mass-removal of Category:Big-bust models and performers from hundreds of articles like Candye Kane, and Russ Meyer actress Cynthia Myers.

Also:

For what it's worth... Dekkappai 21:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She's obviously a big-bust model, but it's the many borderline cases which make the list subjective. I've never denied the existence of the big-bust genre. Epbr123 21:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Until an administrator closes this debate, it's "open." However, the discussion appears to be done, regardless (nobody's commenting much anymore). I guess noadmin has gotten around to closing it yet. --Cheeser1 18:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

99.242.169.7 19:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, to participate in this sort of discussion, one should tell us whether or not one believes we should keep the article or delete it, and the reasoning behind that recommendation. If you'd provide such a contribution, we'd be happy to consider it. Thanks. --Cheeser1 19:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While there may be no bright line identifying "big-bust" performers and models from others, that's a problem best worked out among editors on the Talk page, not through an AfD. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a content dispute. The boundaries of the "big-bust" genre are no more or less defined than any other. What qualifies as Emo (music) is probably one of the most hotly contested issues I have witnessed on Wikipedia, but no one is arguing that the genre exists. Furthermore, as I have said in the past [1] this is one of the most sought after lists on Wikipedia, averaging tens of thousands of page views per month. Future deletion nominations should be discouraged if no new arguments can be presented for removing such a high-profile list. Yamaguchi先生 23:40, 15 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_big-bust_models_and_performers_(5th_nomination)&oldid=1081090849"