Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Epbr123 (talk | contribs)
291,700 edits
Line 70: Line 70:
**********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. [[User:Epbr123|Epbr123]] 19:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
**********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. [[User:Epbr123|Epbr123]] 19:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. The fact that there is dispute over the inclusion criterion does not warrant wholesale deletion of the page. --[[User:FranchisePlayer|FranchisePlayer]] 19:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. The fact that there is dispute over the inclusion criterion does not warrant wholesale deletion of the page. --[[User:FranchisePlayer|FranchisePlayer]] 19:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
**The fact that there is dispute over the inclusion criterion shows that this article is nothing more thanoriginal research. [[User:Epbr123|Epbr123]] 19:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:52, 8 September 2007

List of big-bust models and performers

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 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]
  • 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]
      • 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]
              • Adequately sorted out? Half the people on the list had never even been in a big-bust movie or mag; it was obvious they should have been removed.

Epbr123 18:59, 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]
  • 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_big-bust_models_and_performers_(5th_nomination)&oldid=156543582"