User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington/Desk/AfD
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of big-bust models and performers
I have no strong feelings about this nom one way or the other, but it has been suggested that it is somehow unfair not to have this article up for deletion when the article List of Playboy Playmates with D-cup or larger breasts is. So, this nomination. This article has been nominated twice before, see discussions here and here. Previous discussions seemed to get tainted fairly quickly with accusations of bad faith and other shenanigans, so let's try to keep to a minimum here, OK? My only concern with the article is that it's performer by genre. We've had some consensus emerge recently that "model by magazine" is unacceptable (see discussion of Category: Playgirl and Category: playgirl models here, and the categories for Playboy models, Playboy Cyber Girls, Playboy Coeds of the Week and Playboy NSS models here. This may not be the same sort of issue but since previous discussions devolved so quickly an actual discussion of the article and the performer by genre situation is appropriate. Otto4711 02:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. There is no good reason to delete this. The list is informative, if incomplete. If anything there should be a cross-referentce to the Playgirl model article (which by the way should also never have been deleted). [[User:JD] Dec. 19 2006]
- ABOVE VOTE APPEARS TO BE FAKED - see edit entry by 136.159.168.221. Is there a better way to mark that sort of thing? --Closeapple 00:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. The fact that some performers are marketed as having large breasts (as opposed to merely having large breasts) is verifiable and vaguely notable. "Playboy Playmates with..." on the other hand should go because it's unnecessarily specific. FiggyBee 02:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep largely per FiggyBee. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the first one and Delete the Playboy one per Figgy. TJ Spyke 03:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as unsourced, and as unmanageable because there is no objective way to determine exactly what qualifies as having a "big bust." Dpbsmith (talk)
- Most magazines and websites (like Score, the biggest magazine that focuses on busty women) usually consider D cup as the minimum size to be considered a big bust. TJ Spyke 04:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as poorly defined. The lead says it's based not on marketing, but on having DD cups or larger. However, this is totally arbitrary and is based on obviously inflated marketing. It's like having a "list of comfortable cars." Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Except "comfortable" is not a recognisable category of cars (but "luxury" is), whereas "big-bust" is a recognisable category of porn actress. Maybe we need a better way of determining who does and doesn't qualify for the list, but the fact that the boundaries are fuzzy doesn't mean the category is meaningless. FiggyBee 03:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Car categories are generally applied by third parties or by reputable manufacturers, at least. This list is only based on what porn stars have to say for themselves, and the article itself says such things are regularly inflated. A better analogy would be List of big dick porn stars -- we could put a size requirement on such a thing, but it still comes down basing a list on material known to be unreliable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's hardly "only based on what porn stars have to say for themselves": there are women on this list who, undeniably, have very large breasts. Also, since what makes this list notable is the popularity of big-tit porn, the fact that any given model claims to have large breasts is significant (and may even be a valid criterion for inclusion on the list!). FiggyBee 04:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Car categories are generally applied by third parties or by reputable manufacturers, at least. This list is only based on what porn stars have to say for themselves, and the article itself says such things are regularly inflated. A better analogy would be List of big dick porn stars -- we could put a size requirement on such a thing, but it still comes down basing a list on material known to be unreliable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Not every performer/model can be included with this. See Dolly Parton Somitho 05:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I just edited the page and saw there is a hidden comment for editors, clarifying the criteria for inclusion in the list;
Please note: This should only include women who appear in big-bust videos or magazines (not all of this is porn), not just women who happen to have large breasts (i.e., Pamela Anderson, Dolly Parton, etc.).
FiggyBee 04:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yet pamela anderson is a performer known for her big breasts. Why is she listed as excluded? As for going by what porn stars have to say, we don't have such things as abstract undeniable facts around here, we require claims to be cited to reputable sources. Someone's promotional bio is not a reputable source for things that are often puffery, nor are our own observations of photographs. Such a thing would be considered original research. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Pamela is not included because this is a list of peformers known for appearing in a particular subgenre of pornography, rather than known for having big boobs (which again is why what their actual measurements are is irrelevent). They are "big-bust performers", not "performers with big busts".FiggyBee 07:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yet pamela anderson is a performer known for her big breasts. Why is she listed as excluded? As for going by what porn stars have to say, we don't have such things as abstract undeniable facts around here, we require claims to be cited to reputable sources. Someone's promotional bio is not a reputable source for things that are often puffery, nor are our own observations of photographs. Such a thing would be considered original research. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per FiggyBee and Somitho. Akihabara 06:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I haven't brought out WP:IAR in a while... if I recall correctly, this is one of the most viewed articles on Wikipedia. Keep solely to bring more people to the project. Yes, I'm serious. --- RockMFR 07:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Many people want to find information specifically about big-bust sex-perfomers because this is their natural sexual orientation and their interest. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide factual information to people who want to know. And it makes no sense to classify this information into some obscure or general categories that will make it more difficult for people to find the information they want. Nick367 09:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete define big. Do we have a single, unambiguous definition of what size bust is accepted as big? No? Indiscriminate and arbitrary, then. Also, why big bust, not long hair or big feed or someting. Egregious porncruft, begone. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, notable genre within the porn industry and these women are known for their breasts. Dismas|(talk) 12:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, I see no encyclopedic value in having an article about big tits Alf photoman 13:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Guy. Pure listcruft. As noted by Guy above this one doesn't even attempt to define big. Can I do an article on medium-bust average height models too? MartinDK 16:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Guy, where is the definition of what's big and what's not, and per Night Gyr.--John Lake 18:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, though John Lake makes a point that perhaps some criteria should be added (i.e. the models are primarily known for their bust size, or appear frequently in magazines devoted to said fetish). My only concern is that this article is likely to become populated with more and more redlinks as time goes on, as individual articles on these models tend to get AFD'd as these folks don't tend to get the awards necessary to meet WP:PORNBIO's criteria. 23skidoo 22:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep since the criterion is there of their being market as busty, and not just o.r. opinions of editors as to how pneumatic they are. Edison 00:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - that's a completely silly reason for deletion nomination, and it also just happens to be one of our most popular pages - David Gerard 10:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - as the article says "It is fairly common for this category of models and dancers to publish misleading measurements." Also bust sizes change according to fashion. No absolute or verifiable requirements for inclusion means deletion as failing WP:V. TerriersFan 18:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep — Not thrilled about the content, but it seems valid per earlier arguments. — RJH (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep David Gerard makes a good point. And so does RJHall. I can't see any valid reason to delete this considering it's been through AFD twice, and kept twice. --SunStar Nettalk 20:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The criteria for the list are clearly defined. According to Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists, "The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination." Its popularity-- whether one approves of the subject or not-- is proven by the fact that this list is the 16th most-viewed page on Wikipedia [1]. Wikipedia is not censored. Dekkappai 23:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Reluctant Keep As much as I'm surprised to say it, considered the concept, this list has developed well defined scope. And as long as someone is able to watch the page, I do not see sufficient cause to delete the page.-- danntm T C 02:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep one of the most popular pages on wikipedia. completely agree with Dekkappai --Hexvoodoo 07:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It's probably easier to classify who has modeled large breasts for publication than it is to, for example, determine what city or U.S. state someone is "from" when they lived in multiple cities, yet we have still "People from" categories. Also, the reasoning here doesn't make logical sense: List of Playboy Playmates with D-cup or larger breasts is more specific a subject than this article, so it would be a delete consensus on this article that would imply AfD on the other article, not the other way around. Letting AfD-keep advocates from one article drag more general articles into their mess comes close to the "someone lists one of your favourite articles on AfD and calls it silly" example in Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Closeapple 20:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Unlike the Playmates one, this is encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion. Since many of these performers are famous -specifically- for their bust size, it's significant enough to warrant a list. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 00:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The information was posted here because people are obviously interested in the material, therefore it becomes valuable knowledge to some and worth keeping.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.81.126.169 (talk • contribs)
- Delete Get real. Who gets to decide whether somebodys bigbusted or not?EnabledDanger 03:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This debate more than the existance of this article has proven the complete confusion over what Wikipedia actually is. This would never make it into an encyclopedia. It doesn't really matter if it stays or not, no one is going to be harmed by this article being here. But why bother defining Wikipedia as an encyclopedia when in reality it is just a collection of random information. Let's just give up trying to market ourselves as an encyclopedia and be honest about what this project really is... a searchable database of random information. MartinDK 12:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Exactly, Martin. And Wikipedia, as it is currently set up, will never be a rival to traditional encyclopedias on the traditional subjects-- science, mathematics, history... At best, it will be only an easy starting point for information on these subjects. Articles on these subjects by anonymous, uncredentialed editors is never going to rival writing by experts in their fields. It is exactly subjects like this, which will not be found in traditional encyclopedias, and on which is is nearly impossible to fine unbiased, non-commercial, sourced information which is Wikipedia's strongest point. Articles like this are exactly the kind in which Wikipedia has the advantage over traditional encyclopedias and other reference sources. Dekkappai 16:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment That I agree with. So what I was thinking was this: rather than spend time debating if something is original research, sourced etc. why not just face the facts as you described them above? Debates like the one we are having here are surreal. We are trying to apply academic principles to determine the value of a list of big-bust models. Am I the only one to whom that sounds totally surreal? MartinDK 16:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, I've also noticed the surrealism that can creep up in these arguments on more than one occasion, but I suppose that's to be expected. I do agree with Wiki's original research/NPOV/sourcing rules. Just because an article is on a non-traditional subject doesn't mean it can't be well-written, sourced, etc. These are valuable policies. I do think that these rules are sometimes applied more strictly-- sometimes absurdly so-- to some subjects than others, depending on the biases of particular editors. But that's another issue. Dekkappai 17:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I agree that those are important policies. They just aren't very suited for debating a list of big-bust models. And if we agree that this is the kind of articles that Wikipedia does better than anyone else then maybe we should consider the criterias we use when discussing this kind of article or at least to what degree we should apply these policies. MartinDK 17:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think what we're getting at here is the difference between form and content. My understanding is that Wikipedia strives to be an encylopedia in form. Its goal is to produce well-written, reasonably unbiased, appropriately sourced articles on a wide variety of subjects, like a traditional encyclopedia. However, when editors seek to delete articles like this on the grounds that they are "unencyclopedic," what they mean is that they are unencyclopedic in content, not necessarily in form. "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia," means Wikipedia does not seek to imitate the content of a traditional encyclopedia, only its form. So a well-written article on every pop-culture reference in one episode of The Simpsons, or a list of Playboy Playmates whose bra cup is D or above, as long as they are encyclopedic in form, are perfectly appropriate. That's my take on it anyway. Dekkappai 18:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you. Putting it that way it becomes much more clear to me what is meant by the word encyclopedia around here. I was getting to the point where I was getting frustrated but putting it like you just did it becomes perfectly clear to me. I hope a lot more people than me read your responses to me because it really clarifies things a lot and would make many of these AfD's a lot more to the point. MartinDK 18:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks to you too, Martin. It's been interesting thinking this thing out. Dekkappai 19:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you. Putting it that way it becomes much more clear to me what is meant by the word encyclopedia around here. I was getting to the point where I was getting frustrated but putting it like you just did it becomes perfectly clear to me. I hope a lot more people than me read your responses to me because it really clarifies things a lot and would make many of these AfD's a lot more to the point. MartinDK 18:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think what we're getting at here is the difference between form and content. My understanding is that Wikipedia strives to be an encylopedia in form. Its goal is to produce well-written, reasonably unbiased, appropriately sourced articles on a wide variety of subjects, like a traditional encyclopedia. However, when editors seek to delete articles like this on the grounds that they are "unencyclopedic," what they mean is that they are unencyclopedic in content, not necessarily in form. "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia," means Wikipedia does not seek to imitate the content of a traditional encyclopedia, only its form. So a well-written article on every pop-culture reference in one episode of The Simpsons, or a list of Playboy Playmates whose bra cup is D or above, as long as they are encyclopedic in form, are perfectly appropriate. That's my take on it anyway. Dekkappai 18:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I agree that those are important policies. They just aren't very suited for debating a list of big-bust models. And if we agree that this is the kind of articles that Wikipedia does better than anyone else then maybe we should consider the criterias we use when discussing this kind of article or at least to what degree we should apply these policies. MartinDK 17:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, I've also noticed the surrealism that can creep up in these arguments on more than one occasion, but I suppose that's to be expected. I do agree with Wiki's original research/NPOV/sourcing rules. Just because an article is on a non-traditional subject doesn't mean it can't be well-written, sourced, etc. These are valuable policies. I do think that these rules are sometimes applied more strictly-- sometimes absurdly so-- to some subjects than others, depending on the biases of particular editors. But that's another issue. Dekkappai 17:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment That I agree with. So what I was thinking was this: rather than spend time debating if something is original research, sourced etc. why not just face the facts as you described them above? Debates like the one we are having here are surreal. We are trying to apply academic principles to determine the value of a list of big-bust models. Am I the only one to whom that sounds totally surreal? MartinDK 16:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Exactly, Martin. And Wikipedia, as it is currently set up, will never be a rival to traditional encyclopedias on the traditional subjects-- science, mathematics, history... At best, it will be only an easy starting point for information on these subjects. Articles on these subjects by anonymous, uncredentialed editors is never going to rival writing by experts in their fields. It is exactly subjects like this, which will not be found in traditional encyclopedias, and on which is is nearly impossible to fine unbiased, non-commercial, sourced information which is Wikipedia's strongest point. Articles like this are exactly the kind in which Wikipedia has the advantage over traditional encyclopedias and other reference sources. Dekkappai 16:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This debate more than the existance of this article has proven the complete confusion over what Wikipedia actually is. This would never make it into an encyclopedia. It doesn't really matter if it stays or not, no one is going to be harmed by this article being here. But why bother defining Wikipedia as an encyclopedia when in reality it is just a collection of random information. Let's just give up trying to market ourselves as an encyclopedia and be honest about what this project really is... a searchable database of random information. MartinDK 12:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep close. Just H 18:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep per User:FiggyBee 20:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per Figgy. Also, there are several ways to define what "big" means. Having a size D or up, inclusion in big-bust videos/magazines, self-identification as having large breasts, these are all options. All of which can be sourced. Which method should be used is a debate for the talk page. -kotra 02:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
