|
List of big-bust models and performers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) (AfD 6)
The closing admin noted that "nobody has successfully refuted Scott MacDonald's point that the list is inherently subjective and the poor referencing leads to BLP issues." Actually several folks, including myself, mention that sourcing each entry would address those very concerns. This was the sixth AfD for the article including one that was overturned at DRV. Any OR and BLP concerns are WP:Problems that should be fixed. Also this seems to be a perennial top 100 article on Wikipedia so a well-written article would actually serve our readers better than simply deleting something based on what seems to be cultural bias. WP:BLP should not be a delete hammer to rid ourselves of articles, in this case it should instead be used to move contentious entries to the talkpage until BLP concerns are addressed by better writing and sourcing to address such concerns. -- Banjeboi 13:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the following. -- Suntag ☼ 15:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse own deletion as a valid interpretation of the debate. Please remember that this is not round 2 of AFD. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak endorse The link above points to an earlier AfD, by the way. There was a lot of crowing about the nomination and about how the article is periodically nominated, but not much substantive argument for keeping it. The line between "fix problems and don't delete" and "these problems make the article innapropriate for wikipedia" is a very fuzzy one. There are articles where clearly no amount of improvement will result in an appropriate entry. there are articles where cleanup is obviously the best solution. But in the middle we can't just argue that cleanup can happen so therefore the article should be kept. A number of people noted that the inclusion criteria and the only real response was that these were solvable problems. That's not a compelling response to me. Well, I'm getting ahead of myself, as stifle said, this isn't AfD2. It was borderline, but it seems like deletion was proper. Protonk (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Link to relevant AfD added. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. Empty promises to add sources for a highly subjective criteria. How comes sources weren't added after all the previous AfDs? Let me quote Geometry guy's position in the RfC on notability: "There is a deadline: it arrives when someone lists the article at AfD." VG ☎ 15:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article was mentioned in The Sun (12 Dec 2007) Wikipedia's bust idea ever. -- Suntag ☼ 15:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good reference for Criticism of Wikipedia rather than the list itself. VG ☎ 16:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. -- Suntag ☼ 15:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- History undelete please for DRV discussion. Thanks -- Suntag ☼ 16:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - I'm seeing nothing wrong here with the way this deletion progressed, and with the final decision (regardless of which way it went) - Alison ❤ 16:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since I actually attempted to address the nom's points in turn, I was quite surprised to find that "failure to address the nom's points" was the reason given for the closure. Whether they are addressed successfully is surely a subjective decision, not really a closure criteria? Not sure if I'm entitled to have a position here, since I participated in the AfD discussion, but I'd have been a lot happier if the closure had cited apparent consensus (though I doubt there really was any) rather than claiming the nom's position was not challenged. MadScot (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As was stated in the AfD one of the main contributors, who had shown a great willingness to collaborate and address problems was frustrated by the regular efforts to delete content and the article. This AfD was my first introduction to it and I see the list as certainly fixable and stated such in the discussion. The AfD, IMHO, was rather split so was surprised it wasn't called as "no consensus". If the community demands clarity for inclusion and sourcing to address BLP concerns then make that clear and assume good faith that editors will do so, I've done that on a much larger list so I know it's possible. A 3-6 month stay of execution would be reasonable to address concerns. -- Banjeboi 16:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse but feel free to develop a user space article. After AfD#6, promises to fix may receive less weight than after AfD#1. We have Category:Big-bust models and performers, so we're not losing too much material. For list intersections, Wikipedia:Irrelevant Intersections for Lists indicates a need for a reliable source that addresses the issue of a connection between the intersectees and showing how that relationship is manifested. I think that a list such as List of adult entertainers having a reputation for large sized breasts could be a viable intersection list if the adult entertainment industry or some reliable source sets out criteria for being a large sized breasts adult entertainer and reliable sources utilize that criteria. As consensus sets out in AfD#6, the present list never came together to meet V and RS. The title of the article did not assist in this at all and the membership criteria "the consensus among many independent web sites is that a DD cup size and larger qualifies as "large" " may have poisoned the well. In response to using Juggs Magazine as a reliable source (yes, please use), Scott MacDonald posted in AfD6, "I've no doubt a well-referenced article can be written on the subject (with attributed examples of popular views)."[3] MadScott additionally pointed out that "There's an AVN awards category for "Best Specialty Release - Big Bust"."[4] GlassCobra also adds, "These actresses are indeed famous precisely because of their large busts."[5]. There clearly can be a Wikipedia article on this topic. The fact that this topic is a perennial top 100 article on Wikipedia means we really need to ensure that this article meets Wikipedia article standards. A good way to go about this is to create a user space article and get DRVs thumbs up on it to move it into user space. -- Suntag ☼ 16:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, but I agree with Suntag. There is the potential for a similar, but less subjective article to be created. Epbr123 (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, article survived six AFDs by "keep" voters arguing that references could be obtained, yet references still never appeared. fish&karate 17:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn Issues of subjectivity and BLP were clearly handled in the AfD with a large set of various sources listed. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close my nomination listed inherent issues of POV, OR and unverifiability in ANY selection criteria for this. The closer rightly identified that the keep arguments did not answer the policy based reasons for the deletion nomination. DRV is not round 9 of afd.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess my post of 01:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC) was invisible to yourself and the closer then? I'm rather frustrated that having restricted my own comments largely to addressing the issues raised by the nom, they were in effect ignored and apparently the large number of !votes based on "oh how demeaning" apparently swayed the closing. It's extremely frustrating to find an AfD debate closed on such thin grounds when there was no apparent consensus. MadScot (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to be rude, but maybe people are not finding your arguments convincing. You've noted a few times that people have ignored or otherwise marginalized your views on the issue. It may be possible that they considered them and then rejected them for some reason. Protonk (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's OK, I don't find that rude. In fact I'd rather be told my input is valueless than have it ignored altogether. At least you're acknowledging there was an attempt to address the nom's issue. MadScot (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it is valueless. And even if people don't find it persuasive it isn't valueless (people often don't find opposing arguments persuasive, unfortunately). I agree that some mention of your comments should have been made and I understand your frustration. Alternately, someone may have dismissed (fairly or unfairly) your first argument as basically WP:OSE and not noticed your second comment (which was stronger, IMO). Protonk (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion after several years, six(!) AFDs, and considerable editor attention, promises that the article can somehow be fixed are less than convincing. I also note that, as I noted in the AfD, a bulk of the keep votes simply said it should be kept because it's been through AfD before, while apparently ignoring that all but one of the previous debates were "delete" or "no consensus". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: A request for a history undeletion was denied due the massive number of revisions involved, so I've created User:Lifebaka/Sandbox/For DRV with the content from the most recent version (less the AfD tag and categories) for the benefit of non-admins. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - I was not aware there was any time constraints for anything to be done. This plainly boils down to "I dont like it, so it should go through as many AFD's as it takes to get rid of it" rather than edit to correct the problems. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. Inclusion criteria for the list were not well-defined. The proposed solution (sourcing every entry) might be an improvement, but it would create a hodgepodge of links to sources of a more tabloid and sensationalist, rather than reliable, nature. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems like a pile of bad faith assumptions. This list - like so many others - is in need of tighter definitions that are clear in the lede and reliable sourcing which demonstrates the entry adheres to the list requirements. These are all fixable problems as laid out in the AfD. -- Banjeboi 08:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It's been alleged that because sourcing hasn't fully enveloped each entry over the course of each AfD that it won't happen or it's evidence that editors are adverse to this. I find this troubling as we all know that articles, generally, improve over time and the issue doesn't seem to be that sources don't exist but that they're not yet on the article. Each entry is for an existing article which evidently asserts the notability there and a quick look shows that redlinked entries were non-existent. We discourage ownership issues so why hold some "other" editors to adding sources and cleaning up WP:Problems? Even adding a few would help set a good example. Finally I will point out that I had never known the article existed until this AfD - there are likely many willing editors much more interested in teh subject who given some sound structure and good examples to follow would be willing to do the actual clean-up work. Unclear why we wouldn't encourage this. This article is arguably one of the top gateway articles to the rest of the project - instead of pointing at its faults and lamenting generalized concerns - it seems the project would benefit by turning into a good article that treats a contemporary subject encyclopedicly where others could or would not. Exactly what Wikipedia can do best. -- Banjeboi 08:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That might work if this was the first or second AFD to say that the sourcing was poor. This was the sixth. Requests for more time to come up with sources are a bit hollow. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that this is my first AfD with this article and current editors shouldn't be judged by what previous editors failed to accomplish. And the time needed isn't to come up with sources but to come up with consensus on how to fix the criteria and then format the list to address concerns which likely entail ensuring every item is sourced. -- Banjeboi 10:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How to fix the criteria. (1) Make sure that "adult entertainers" appears in the name of the article. (2) Don't use a website to source the inclusion criteria. (3) Source the inclusion criteria to (a) Juggs Magazine and/or to (b) the AVN awards category for "Best Specialty Release - Big Bust". (4) Create a table that has a column for footnotes. -- Suntag ☼ 20:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly, these are actually constructive ways to address fixing the problems. That previous editors walked away from keep or delete AfD discussions and did not fix the article problems is not a reason to delete. This was stressed in the AfD. -- Banjeboi 22:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. If not one cares enough to completely overhaul an article that is currently outside our inclusion guidelines to one inside our inclusion guidelines, then eventually we have to ask whether on not we want to keep it. If after 5 years and 6 AfD's no one has stepped up to the plate, how long to we wait with an article that fails WP:NPOV and WP:SYN? I know the standard responses of AfD is not cleanup and there is no deadline but those are rallying cries and not a reasonable way to treat an article which doesn't meet the guidelines. At what point do we take responsibility for this and say: this either gets improved to the point where we can say "revision X meets guidelines and policies" or it gets deleted? And don't say never because we do it all the time. A3 and A7 deletions are basically extreme versions of the statement "there is too much between this and an acceptable article". What happens if we have a set of clear possible criteria (like above) but Suntag doesn't want to order 100 back issues of Juggs to make the list? I certainly don't want to. Right now we have intertia in play. If this article remains, the only thing that will save it is a complete rewrite. The motivation to make that rewrite gets smaller the larger the article gets, because we have a natural inclination to make small adjustments (esp. on a wiki) or append items rather than revamp the basic idea. Maintaining this list makes it more likely that its current format is perpetuated. So do we restore it, stub it and enforce the inclusion criteria? Who is going to do that? Who will stop someone from just reverting to the old version and making and article that doesn't meet our guidelines? I'm not saying that everything which doesn't arouse instant interest should be deleted. Most articles see very little interest. I'm just suggesting that we can't keep saying that some unwieldy list like this will be magically turned into an article that meets community expectations and then call that constructive (versus deletion, which is evidently always destructive). Some time along the line we have to say "If wikipedia should have an article on this, it shouldn't be this one." Just my thoughts. Protonk (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And your thoughts are valid - again these are all reasns to clean-up an article - not to delete it. If editors feel their work is continually targeted and vandalized that it's unsurprising that inertia would wane. It's not fixed yet ergo never will be so let's delete it is a terrible policy position. Our standards of what a featured article is have greatly improved even over the past few years yet we work to re-evaluate and improve striving to make articles better. There's no reason this article can't be improved to even a GA level, unless, of course, WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes are now seen as justifiable concerns. OR, NPOV and RS issues are all WP:Problems. We fix problems not give up all hope. -- Banjeboi 00:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Article content and deletion policies and guidelines do not require that editors continue to assume that an article will be fixed in the presence of contrary evidence. Also, arguing weakness in a delete reasoning does not mean strength in keep reasoning, particularly one not supported by sufficient factual evidence. -- Suntag ☼ 14:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's possibly true except that I'm stating that I'm willing to fix it if this is overturned. -- Banjeboi 03:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, selection criteria always were subjective and subjectively based on notoriously unreliable sources at that. This article was both listcruft and porncruft and its departure improves the project. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously! Guy, perhaps you had a very sheltered childhood? It is in fact one of the most socially structured forms of autoerotic activity there is.[1] Again, what is the problem with lists pertaining to breast fetishism? This is the entertainment industry, and it takes years to write objective articles. Ottre 00:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse close. The close may have been against the consensus of the deletion debate but it is always legitimate to look behind the votes at the competing arguments. In this case, the nominator and closer both correctly point to the fact that the list was based on subjective and arbitrary admission criteria. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which indeed are problems that should be fixed, not unfixable problems ergo we need to delete. -- Banjeboi 23:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And if it was the first or second AFD I would have closed accordingly. You're missing the fact that the "someone will improve it" line has been exhausted at this stage — clearly, nobody's willing to do so. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually no - that seems to be the only reason to delete this and no one has fixed it yet is a terrible idea for deletion policy. -- Banjeboi 12:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn No clear consensus for deletion, and the admin intervention here disregards the consensus of the previous AfDs. Doubtless that we will see continued AfDs and a seventh (and eighth, and ninth....) AfD will be initiated until the result is acceptable to those who want this article deleted. Alansohn (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The consensus of the previous AFDs isn't relevant, see WP:CCC. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It most certainly is, if it is gaming the system. After how many AFD's, hasn't it become apparent that there will be no consensus about this article? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 23:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If WP:CCC means a neverending cycle of deletion attempts with the excuse that consensus can change, why not recreate the exact same article after one of the attempts at deletion is successful? This type of "consensus" is completely worthless if it has no long-term value. If after a half-dozen attempts at deletion only one is successful, there is clearly no consensus here other than a determined effort to game the process. Alansohn (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Come on guys are arguing to undelete on the idea that the article will be improved but its had years and no-one has. The consensus is clear. I suggest you work up a sweat on an article in your userspace and bring it here for review after its been improved. Spartaz Humbug! 06:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems to really be assuming bad faith that I won't improve the article if this is overturned. I do intend to as I feel this is a case of Gaming the system as mentioned above of sending an article to AfD until the editors are repelled and you can get it deleted. If even a half the energy was put into rewriting the lede to address the stated concerns that has been put into deleting the article we'd have a good article already. The article is fixable and there are editors willing to fix it so this comes down to we don't like it so we're deleting it. That seems quite counter to the stated mission of the project. In addition this perpetually has been one of the top 100 articles out of two million so apparently its a sought after subject that our readers - who we are apparently volunteering our energy for - also want. -- Banjeboi 12:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not assuming bad faith at all. He didn't say you won't try your hardest to improve the article. HE is just saying after 5 years and 6 deletion debates no one has improved the article despite constant promises. His suggestion that a userspace draft can be made and improved would seem to make everyone happy. About the gaming the system idea...I don't know what to say. We are either going to agree that deletion is a legitimate and fundamental part of wiki process or we are going to disagree. In the case that we agree, we would have to come to the conclusion that taking an article to AfD which doesn't fit the criteria for inclusion (in the nominator's mind) is legitimate. Otherwise (should we disagree) we can never reach that conclusion. Protonk (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, to me there's a great benefit to working with other editors to encourage them to fix problems and what I sensed was something other than that in regrads to the articles editing. I was refering to that in conjunction with recurring AfDing. AfD is certainly a valid process but it often occurs instead of regular editing and clean-up. -- Banjeboi 00:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure. Being mindful that the proper subject of review is the close, I have to conclude that the closure of this AfD was within the range of what I consider to be closer's discretion to weigh conflicting arguments. I personally would have gone with no consensus, but I think that of the arguments actually advanced in the Afd, the deletes had slightly the better of it. I would allow userfication to Benjiboi or another interested experienced editor, and frankly, I think it would be reasonable to extend him the good faith to recreate the article without the need to return here. The policy violations of the prior list are obvious, and there has been specific guidance given here as to how they might be ameliorated. I trust he will do so before returning the article to main space. It's not as if the article won't be watched closely in any event. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually have plenty of projects already on hold so would not like it userfied. I see no reason to not let all those who are interested to help in fixing it. -- Banjeboi 00:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure -- nothing improper about the close or delete. The arguments were spurious, not based on policy, and it's clear that after six AfD's, the reason it doesn't meet WP:RS or WP:OR is because sourcing does not and cannot exist for such a list. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 02:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are simply mistaken. Once an agreed upon criteria for inclusion is determined items are either sourced or not. Sources certainly can be sussed out but they are directly tied to the criteria set forth in the lede. -- Banjeboi 00:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. There was no greater consensus for deletion of this article than in previous precedents. Claims that policy was better argued by one side or another are simply spurious: policy arises out of consensus. It is not a law given to set boundaries to possible consensus. There was no consensus to delete this, and if someone invokes policy to claim otherwise, that policy must yield. Moreover, the closer's "weighing of conflicting arguments" must always break in favor of keeping, and this did not. To claim otherwise essentially randomizes results by making them contingent on who decides to close it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn And that it hasn't been improved over the last 6 AfDs isn't a reason to delete, and the AfD discussion seemed like no consensus to me. At the very very least, userfy and hand it to Benjiboi. Hobit (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Appreciate it but I would prefer not to have it userfied when the article can be fixed in place with any interested editors just as we do with all other articles. -- Banjeboi 03:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per Alansohn. After six AfDs, this seems less like evaluating consensus and more like gaming the system for desired results. GlassCobra 15:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - no procedural error in the close. While acknowledge the project has no deadline, there comes a time, as others have said, that "keep it, I promise to work on it" ceases to be justification. That time has come and gone for this article. As for the notion that eventually there will be created by Wikipedia a non-arbitrary inclusion criterion, a) that's not our job and b) is impossible without resorting to WP:OR and W:NPOV. Otto4711 (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not exactly, procedurally it was in the middling area which defaults to no consensus (keep), that the closer linked here was likely also seems telling but what's done is done. I can't speak for any past discussions or editors but current editors have expressed a willingness and interest in creating a non-arbitrary inclusion criterion. Hardly impossible. -- Banjeboi 18:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? I think if it genuinely were possible it would have been done by now, because it's been identified as a problem so often and for so long. I'd go so faras to say that if it were possible then it would have been done here and now in order to reverse a deleton largely based on the lack of any objective and verifiable seelction criterion. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The goal isn't to create a lengthy list - with every possible item included - but to turn this into a good list article. Just like many lists on Wikipedia this one is plagued by vagueness. That can certainly be addressed as has been mentioned numerous times. Then all items on the list are subject to that criteria. Renaming may also help. Deleting an article simply because it hasn't be fixed yet is a terrible idea. -- Banjeboi 20:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I understand that things change around here and generally, banning further discussion isn't generally done. But. People. 6 AfDs? I agree with Guy in that I think if we could make this article encyclopedic, we would've done it by now (and I believe I've edited the page at least once over my time here). It's not as if the 6 deletion debates were in a one year span. We're talking over 3 years. It's actually a longer gap than I bet most editors in this discussion have been on Wikipedia. Lists based on "big", "small" and other such terms in regards to body parts are just too difficult to judge. What's big bust to one person isn't to someone else. Enough is enough. I know! We need a Del--WoohookittyWoohoo! 20:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
