Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 24

• delete That may well be the dullest article on wikipedia. I know dullness isn't a criteria for deletion, but it had to be said. Actual justification per nom. MadScot (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete How-to thinly disguised as an encyclopedia article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as
  WP:NOTHOWTO, a "how-to" style manual of instructions. --Badgernet ^Talk 15:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as something of an instruction manual (though rather lacking at that). Either way this isn't WikiHow. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cool, en has got a
  not-howto rule? Not significant for an encyclopedia. abf /talk to me/ 19:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete this
  how-to guide. Cliff smith ^talk 20:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: this how-to won't even survive WikiHow! Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 03:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Its a shame this needs to be here another 3-4 days longer. JBsupreme (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is
  chatter) 07:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per
  a DIY manual within the wikisphere. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Sure the article is dull, but its information and quite useful. So how to make it not a how-to page to make it more ‘’encyclopaedic’’ would be helpful. To quote "Works of encyclopedic scope aim to convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain". I think this ticks the box despite the limited scope of the article. Andrewray99 (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC) _{(moved from AFD talk page nancy ^(talk) 08:23, 26 September 2008 (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.

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 keep.

Kristen Aldridge

Kristen Aldridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Tagged since June for multiple issues including

• Keep At a quick glance she seems notable enough. However the article as it is is bad, as tagged. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete When the time comes, someone other than the subject of the article will create it DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep seems notable enough, but the article needs some clean up and needs sources, other than that it looks passable.
  What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box 03:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Forgot to mention a few things I noticed about the references which seemed to provide virtually no backup to most everything written. One reference is her own website another is nothing but a gallery of self published pics and two of them KARE-11 and Metromix I could find not a single mention of this person. The one article that actually had anything written about her (Minnesota Monthly) didn't seem to indicate any significance or notability she has gained in her field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmore3 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Article makes credible claims of notability for the subject. While
  WP:COI may be a genuine issue for an individual editor, there is no irrevocable taint for the information, which has since been updated by multiple editors. Article needs better sourcing and expansion, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• And where exactly are these "credible claims of notability" neutrally referenced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmore3 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Minnesota Monthy shows she's notable. So its a keep per that and search 1, 2, and 3. Notability is there. Article simply needs a major overhaul. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry but one article that only goes so far as to expound on her favorite foods would not clarify a person's notability in the least
  WP:CREATIVE. If the credible secondary sources are there to support 99% of the article, go ahead and put them in. Otherwise this article's narcissistic tone and serious lack of reliable references have been given more than enough time to improve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmore3 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 26 September 2008 (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.

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. The primary argument by those !voting to keep was a reference to all the previous AFDs, but

List of big-bust models and performers

List of big-bust models and performers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is committed to three things:

• Who is a "big busted" model is subjective. It is culturally variable. Ultimately any list we produce will just be "what the average wikipedian who is interested in this article agrees". So it is opinion not neutral fact.

• The current criteria offered is the consensus among many independent web sites - eh? 1) That looks like original research - who says that's the consensus? verification? 2) Why are websites the standard anyway? Who says? The judgements here fail WP:V WP:NPOV and WP:OR

• The items on the list are unreferenced. Where is the evidence that any of these performers are know for their breasts?

• There is a BLP issue. We are implying that breast-size is a property that is significant to these people's careers. Evidence? Neutrality?

Basically this is a demeaning and sexist article of the worst kind of subjective internet trivia, unfit for an encyclopedia. True, that "I don't like it" isn't a reason to delete, but nor it "I like it" and I reason to keep. So we fall back on objective criteria

The last debates failed to achieve a deletion consensus, but maybe we've got a better understanding of neutrality and verifiability since then.

Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This nomination is quite condescending, especially that last quip. SashaNein (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Let's bury this BLP-violating hellhole on the sixth[?!?!?!] attempt. Violates
  WP:NPOV and is all and all a very bad idea for an article. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Nom puts it well: OR trivia. I give this list a double F. (Kidding -- I was actually tempted to vote weak keep...)
  IronDuke 15:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Although "demeaning and sexist" is no reason to delete an article, this is, in my eyes, comparable to an article titled List of important countries or List of important people. The criteria is apparently determined by 'many important sites and magazines', or words to that effect, which is open to too much interpretation. I agree 100% with the assertion that any list we produce will just be "what the average wikipedian who is interested in this article agrees". Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The inclusion criteria for this list is subjective and original research. Epbr123 (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also because of the same arguments raised at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_4#Category:MILF_Actress. Epbr123 (talk) 03:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Rename If this was renamed List of models and performers in big-bust pornography, that would reduce the original research involved. It would also reduce the BLP issues, as it would be clearer that people like Dolly Parton don't belong. Epbr123 (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• double-D-Delete. If the inclusion criteria were determinable, it should be a category. However, the history of the AfD's shows that the criteria haven't been determined yet, and the matter was brought up at the first AfD. That seems adequate time for the criteria to be established, to refute the statement that no such criteria can be determined. (Note also that the primary nomination reason fails, as noted by the Cavalry.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per the long string of previous, failed deletion attempts. I frankly find the nominator's tone quite
  assume good faith policy, given that he preemptively claims that this is a "demeaning and sexist" article, and that anyone who would choose to keep it hasn't "grown". Truth is, the dissemination of images of big busted women is fairly obviously referenceable by publications that the nominator might be embarrassed by. There aren't any problems here that aren't repairable by normal editing. And lists of people who qualify for their own articles do not need separate references in the list if their qualification for inclusion is verified on their own articles, either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'm afraid you miss the point. I was trying to indicate that the fact I found it "sexist and demeaning" is beside the point. Ultimately this comes down to the fact that ANY inclusion criteria will be wholly arbitrary. So, leaving aside how I, or you, might subjectively react to the subject matter, can you address the issues I've outlined in the nomination?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure that Juggs Magazine has "wholly arbitrary" criteria for inclusion; if they did, they wouldn't be able to reach their target audience, now would they? (Not sure if they accept freelance material. If they do, they surely have published a guide to would-be contributors.) What constitutes a big-bust model may well be a cultural construction. This does not make the subject indefinable or so vague that it becomes impossible to speak coherently about. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, you can speak about it. I've no doubt a well-referenced article can be written on the subject (with attributed examples of popular views). But what you can't do neutrally is make a binary decision on whether to list someone. Some subjects are suitable for articles but not lists.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least one of the AfD's led to deletion, overturned on DRV, for no apparent reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of defined inclusion criteria and everything else that has been said. Intothewoods29 (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Aboutt the BLP issue, most busty porn stars are famous BECAUSE they have big breasts. Minka, for example, rose to fame as being the worlds bustiest Asian. Keep per every other AFD. The only problem is trying to decide what is considered busty (my opinion is D-cup and above, which from my personal experience is also what big bust DVDs tend to use as well). TJ Spyke 16:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The criterion will always be "in my opinion" or "a consensus of wikipedians" that's the problem.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nominator's reasoning, with particular emphasis on the silliness of having an article with criteria from "consensus among many independent web sites", whatever on earth that means. I trust that the closing admin will ignore any and all "votes" with a reasoning consisting merely of pointing to previous AfDs--The last time this was kept by consensus was 2006, and wikipedia has changed and evolved significantly since then. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article should be busted. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If they are notable. and if their large bust is why they are notable, then there is nothing wrong with such a list. A reliable source should be included for each member to verify they are considered a "big bust model or performer" beyond the original research or opinion of the editor adding the name. If this list is deleted you might also take a look at many lists of people found at [70] which are equally or more deserving of deletion. (This is in no way a keep argument based on "other stuff exists.") Edison (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article differs from other lists of people as there is no established definition of a "big bust model or performer", and any attempt to define it would be original research. Epbr123 (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many of the lists have inclusion criteria as arbitrary, or more arbitrary than this on. How deaf is a deaf person? How obese are the "most obese" people? How bipolar is bipolar? How depressed is a "depressed" person? How "bratty" and how "famous" is a is a "famous military brat?" How "famous" and "young" to be on the list of "famous people who died young?" I am just noting that many lists have membership criteria which are not easily defined. In List of deaf people#Musicians with a hearing loss I expect that almost all rock musicians and many band musicians have "a hearing loss" due to exposure to sounds way over 100 dB for prolonged periods. How many dB of hearing loss is certified for each? Edison (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per a few criteria. Aside from
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT; if this is not a message the nom wants to make I'd recommend removing that wording from the nomination. 23skidoo (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Isn't

WP:NOTAGAIN an argument to avoid? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Epbr123 (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The selection criteria for this list are neither more nor less OR than any of dozens if not hundreds ofother entertainment category lists. I mean, [List of Obese Actors]? I know, otherstuffexists, yada, yada. But fundamentally, any entertainment/art category is subjective, because art and entertainment is subjective. As has been pointed out in other AfD debates - how funny does one have to be to be in a list of comedians? How Emo to be in a list of Emo bands? Each case can be settled by defining a suitable criteria from a third party source - and selecting a criteria in such a way is not OR. I can easily conceive of criteria for this list - "self described as", "marketed as", etc. We have a "list of horror films". Yet, surprisingly, it doesn't include Ishtar. Which I'd consider horrific, especially if I'd been paying for it. Long and short of it (or flat and busty of it, if you will) - subjective lists are inherently part of entertainment classification. There's nothing special about this one, except some people are being prudish about the topic I think. MadScot (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Delete due to ambiguous and arbitrary inclusion criteria. What would be the cutoff point? Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't see how such a list could ever do anything other than violate
  WP:NPOV. nancy ^(talk) 19:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and get it over with I see the usual stupid and irrelevant "what is big" discussion going on here. The big bust genre is an identifiable, sourceable, verifiable genre of entertainment. This has been discussed half a dozen times at AfDs, so it is pointless to re-hash it. The Deletionists have been around this list like dogs around a bitch in heat, and it is inevitable that one of them is going to make the score. I was inexperienced at Wikipedia when I started the section on Japan, and I know now that already well-sourced section can be sourced much better with clear statements on the genre and its history. But I have intentionally not worked on that section since I first put it up, because I know that this list is going to be deleted eventually, and it would be a wasted effort. I would like to turn it into a good article at another, more honest project, and don't want to give Wikipedia any credit for any of it. So let's cut the crap, stop the bullshit Wiki-rule quoting, which do not support this article's deletion, stop playing stupid and just delete it. And if I haven't offended or personally attacked any of my fellow Delete-voters, I apologize. Dekkappai (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, lets have less of that please. Tensions are high on important issues such as this, but keep it calm, please. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This article does no significant good or bad in my opinion. The interest with large breasted women is culturally significant (breast implants exist for a reason) and there are various folks who have become plenty wealthy on their breasts. That having been said, its to me, the same degree of minutae as we might have for list of plus size models, list of fetishes, list of award winning barbecue sauces. So, if you think those should go, so should this, and vice versa. I'm not totally convinced either way at the moment.--Tznkai (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Round and round it goes, where it stops, everybody knows -- it stops when the Deletionists get their way.  Xihr  21:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is really best if you give reasons that answer the arguments for deletion. Simply saying keep and attacking "deletionists" (which I'm not) isn't liable to count for much when the discussion is summed up by an admin. Your comments will be ignored. This is a discussion of the issues raised, not a vote.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've already given them the last ${\displaystyle n}$ times this article has pointlessly come up for deletion. At some point you give up; Deletionists just continue trying until they eventually get their way -- and they nearly always do. What's the point?  Xihr 

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep There doesn't seem to be any controversy or confusion concerning who belongs in the list. The nominator's arguments aren't convincing. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree, there does seem to be some confusion. For example, why are Pamela Anderson and Gemma Atkinson on the list if they have never appeared in big-bust porn magazines or videos. Even most of the pornstars, such as Jenna Jameson, don't fit the supposed criteria. And Dolly Parton being in the list is a BLP nightmare. Epbr123 (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Then remove them. I won't complain. GlassCobra 07:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I wish someone *coughglasscobra* would write WP:BIGUNS or WP:TIGOLEBITTIES to complement
  WP:HOTTIE and ameliorate some of this tension. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Eh? I've not even commented, and I'm mentioned already? o_O GlassCobra 07:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A Russ Meyer-Inspired Keep The article may need editing, but it doesn't deserve erasure.
  talk) 00:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Care to address the issues raised in the nomination? This is a discussion not a vote. Unreasoned keeps (or deleted) will not sway it.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I tried to, but here goes again : subjective - response, all entertainment and arts categorization is subjective. The current criteria offered ... So we fix the criteria. that a criteria could be derived by consensus is not at doubt. Again, what's the criteria for ALL inclusion on Wp for entertainment - notability - anything except subjective? unreferenced At best an argument to remove a specific item on the list, not the list. BLP issue I think if I'm being filmed or photographed for 'Big Juggs Weekly' or whatever that's unlikely to be an issue. I suspect very few if any of the list members are offended by inclusion. Basically this is a demeaning and sexist article Ah, the heart of the matter. You don't like the topic? Tough. Wp is full of stuff I might not like, but it's not about liking it.MadScot (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're attacking keep votes, Scott, I suggest you attack equally weak delete votes, as well. It seems you have no problem with Steve Dufour's completely worthless vote. After all, "This is a discussion not a vote.".. of course, unless it's a vote for 'delete'. THEN IT'S A-OK! SashaNein (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for neutrality concerns. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 03:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• AVN Manages It. There's an AVN awards category for "Best Specialty Release - Big Bust". AVN Awards are recognised by WP as conferring notability. If a respected inductry awards committee can work out what constitutes BUSTY I'm bloody sure we can. Please stop saying its not capable of categorisation. Arguing that its not possible is like arguing that we couldn't have a catgeory for "animation" because there's CGI in "non animated" films. The Academy Awards manages it. Same argument here. You can dispute individuals, and maybe a different category to the AVN one would be bbetter. But that's not a deletion debate. MadScot (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If a respected inductry awards committee can work out what constitutes BUSTY I'm bloody sure we can" - wouldn't that be original research? What we need is a reliable source that defines a big-bust performer. Epbr123 (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily We have a list of Comedians and I bet there's no single list outside WP that contains all on our list. You could quite legitimately SYNTHESIZE a list criteria based on non-WP criteria. I can conceive of combining the AVN rules with some other rule. 'Self-described' would be one possibility. Provide the criteria are agreed and reasonable, multiple criteria which are related makes sense. (List of golfers winning one or more majors is technically synthesis, as each tournament has its own list of winners; in combining the four tournaments there's an element of synthesis. But provided there's general agreement on the four majors, where's the harm?) but again, deciding the correct criteria for a list isn't an AfD topic. Exactly such a list coupld be composed SOLELY of "female actress playing leading or co-=leading roles in a film eligible for the AVN Busty award". Completely non synthesized criteria. But selected and subjective of course. Just like any entertainment list would be. MadScot (talk) 04:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But having to choose the criteria for a list ourselves, rather than acquiring the criteria from a reliable source, is what makes the article OR. I'm not convinced by your comparison with this list to other entertainment lists. To take your "List of Emo bands" as an example, there are plenty of reliable sources discussing what an Emo band is. However, partly due to the lack of reliable media coverage pornography receives, there are few sources discussing what a big-bust performer is. Epbr123 (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except the AVN criteria is that the video/title/series focuses on breasts and their size. There's still a very subjective standard on who the producer puts in his video but the AVN voters are not quibbling over specific "Oh, these tits aren't big enough". They are trying to figure out which is the most strokeable title that focus on breasts size. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lack of unambiguous criteria for inclusion on the list (and any such criteria are bound to be arbitrary, not to mention demeaning towards women). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep' per MadScott. The existence of notable awards for this type of performer/model and others provides reliable sources. There are clearly more than enough sources to keep this. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is not demeaning and sexists, except to the extent that the subject inherently is. I would replace the definition with one that specifies something like "models and entertainers with articles in Wikipedia who are publicly promoted or frequently referred to specifically for the large bust size". We're talking about a genre, not a dimension. DGG (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That criteria is still too ambiguous. What counts as public promotion? How frequent is frequent? Referred to by whom? What type of model or entertainer? Whatever criteria we choose, there'll always be too much original research involved. Epbr123 (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment An issue that has so far been overlooked is that the article is redundant to Category:Big-bust models and performers. Epbr123 (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the plentyful mentioned above (esp. DGG). Response to prior comment; we all know by now that Lists and :Cats can coexist, thats why that issue has been set aside. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list should only coexist with a category if the list provides extra information on each item. However, this list doesn't, and is therefore totally redundant. Epbr123 (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can find no such requirement in
      WP:CLN; indeed, it is stated in WP:Lists#Purposes of Lists that redundancy between categories and lists is "beneficial". Existence of a category in no way influences the acceptability of a list, or vice versa. MadScot (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Ok, I admit I'm wrong. The guidelines have changed a lot since I last looked. Epbr123 (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Next issue. Why isn't this article being blanked for BLP reasons? Wikipedia currently has a high-profile article naming Dolly Parton, Gemma Atkinson, Maria Whittaker, etc. as pornstars, without citing any references. Epbr123 (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Criteria for inclusion appears arbitary. •CHILLDOUBT• 14:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Serious POV issues. What's the criteria? A certain size? The inclusion criteria is arbitrary and unknown. Additionally, it is redundant to Category:Big-bust models and performers. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What an udderly ridiculous article, a mountain of BLP hell. Please, take a pair of bazookas to it and bust it into thin airbags. Place it on the rack with the other deleted articles. The creation of this list was certainly a boob and this sort of thing has to be nipped in the bud. I shall add this to my watchlist so I can be kept abreast of the situation. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MadScot. This is the entertainment industry. Ottre 03:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the rationale provided by DGG, pretty amazing that this has been nominated 6 or 7 times though. Wow. JBsupreme (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean-up valid concerns raised. Ensuring sources are added would also help clean this up.
  -- Banjeboi 12:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I swear I'm retiring from the project if this gets deleted.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nooo! :O The closing admin had better take this into account, as the loss of such an outstanding editor will surely weigh heavily on his or her conscience... GlassCobra 08:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Still waiting for List of big-peen male models and performers :) - Alison ^❤ 18:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I could not help to leave a note. You make me burst into laughter.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination Achromatic (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seem redundant. --Caspian blue (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not manageable, too subjective. Perhaps a category would work, but the list looks like a bad idea. Moreover the name of the list does not speak about the specific sub-genre of pornography, therefore every actor with big busts belongs here even if she acts only in Shakespeare's plays...--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are reasons to fix an article - not to delete it.
    -- Banjeboi 02:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Well, this is the sixth time we discuss it in an AfD and nobody fixed it till now. Therefore I came to conclusion that these problems are not easy to fix.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is the first I've seen f this article and from discussion it seems it's a perenial favorite amongst our readers. I can't believe we have a policy that because a problem isn't fixed in ____ time it should be deleted.
        -- Banjeboi 21:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Delete per nom, Alison, Arthur Rubin, and Juliancolton. I understand that some editors fancy the topic, but please come up with a less subjective criteria. VG ☎ 23:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like all lists, the criteria for inclusion should make sense, be clearly stated and enforced. These are
    -- Banjeboi 02:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • It's been three years since the article's first AfD and the problems still haven't been fixed. The article will always be POV and OR. Epbr123 (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Articles are always being worked on. The easiest solution is to tighten the writing and work towards sourcing the list. POV concerns should be fixed.
        -- Banjeboi 21:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Keep, echoing a couple others above, namely MadScot and DGG. The nom also appears to be misguided: "We are implying that breast-size is a property that is significant to these people's careers." Ah, yes, actually; these actresses are indeed famous precisely because of their large busts. While Ali's comment was funny, and certainly details the double standards of the porn industry, the solution is not to delete this article. It's also a shame that Dekkappai feels that he or she should not bother improving this article because of the constant threat of deletion. Perhaps it could be made into a decent piece if users could focus on improvement instead of removal. GlassCobra 07:55, 29 September 2008 (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.

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.

WebDeck

WebDeck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)