Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers (6th nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:23, 24 September 2008

List of big-bust models and performers

Wikipedia is committed to three things: verification neutrality and fairness to living subjects. This article fails these tests, and indeed cannot pass them.

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 WP:V WP:RS WP:NPOV and WP:BLP and by those policy standards this does not belong.

The last debates failed to achieve a deletion consensus, but maybe we've grown 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:BLP, 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]
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 uncivil and in violation of the 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]

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 **The criterion will always be "in my opinion" or "a consensus of wikipedians" that's the problem.--[[User:Scott MacDonald|Scott MacDonald]] ([[User talk:Scott MacDonald|talk]]) 16:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 *'''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. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 16:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' This article should be busted. [[User:Steve Dufour|Steve Dufour]] ([[User talk:Steve Dufour|talk]]) 16:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)