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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:53, 8 September 2007

List of big-bust models and performers

The inclusion criteria for this list is too subjective. Deciding which models and performers who belong on the list have 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]
- I have stated, in attempting to work with you, that it appeared subjective and that it needed to be worked out. Serves me right, assuming good faith when where is none. Dekkappai 00:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, these musings were made today, when you were pretending to be willing work on the article. Our discussion is over. Dekkappai 00:37, 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 | ^talk_cont | 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]
  - I'm sorry you see this as a bad faith nomination, but even if it were, that shouldn't affect the outcome. Epbr123 11:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why shouldn't it? Disruptive, spiteful, or otherwise bad-faith AfDs are completely inappropriate and should be summarily closed (without deletion) on those grounds. --Cheeser1 11:38, 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]
  - What points? Epbr123 12:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That you don't like Usenet. That you don't want to cooperate in the discussion process at Talk:List of big-bust models and performers. You're disrupting Wikipedia because you didn't get your way. List of big-bust models and performers isn't exactly how you want it? Better delete it. Your point is, as far as I can tell, "if you won't do things my way, I'll just declare it 'subjective' and get it deleted, rather than continue participating in a good faith discussion of the issue." Of course, how am I supposed to know what point you're trying to make? This is the least effective and most disruptive way to do so. And let's not mention the personal attacks. --Cheeser1 12:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why would I dislike Usenet? I'm not going to respond to you anymore. This discussion should be about the article not the nominator. Epbr123 12:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If this was nominated in bad-faith, that's a perfectly relevant point (notice that I'm not the only one saying so). But feel free to storm off and refuse to respond to me. It's not like a bad-faith nominator would contribute a whole lot to an AfD, so i wouldn't mind having fewer comments from you to read. GWH has already explained things, including how you have been disruptive and how you are making a WP:POINT, thoroughly (see above). --Cheeser1 12:57, 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)
        Why is someone with a D bust not a big-bust performer? Epbr123 13:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- 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]
  - 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]

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 * '''Close bad faith nomination.''' I cannot, in good conscience, support this AFD, regardless of my beliefs regarding the article's clear and present [[WP:OR|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.) -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin Jr.]] <sup style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Think out loud]]</sup> 15:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 ** Also, I should note that this page should really be titled "7th nomination", and not "5th". -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin Jr.]] <sup style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Think out loud]]</sup> 15:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
+***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. [[User:Epbr123|Epbr123]] 15:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)