Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers (4th nomination)

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. MER-C 08:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of big-bust models and performers (4th nomination)[edit]

The last Afd, closing as delete, was overturned at deletion review and is now back for Round 4. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 00:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per prior debate Akihabara 01:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article passing Neutral point of view . Tonytypoon 02:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per 3.5 out of 4 AfD's. -- wtfunkymonkey 02:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear consensus at last AfD. Tevildo 03:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why keep nominating over and over, its been proved it meets the standards Tonker83 03:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above votes. Why was it deleted last time? It was clear that the decision was overwelmingly keep, abuse of powers by the admin? TJ Spyke 03:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- admins are allowed to discount arguments which they believe are trivial. Jorcoga 03:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The issues raised in the last afd (qualifications for list, etc) were all considered and consensus was that the article should stay. Keep AGAIN.... --- RockMFR 03:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per consensus at last AfD. Jorcoga 03:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior debate. Quadzilla99 04:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful. I never knew that enjoying large breasted women was a fetish. Nor had I ever heard of Ms. Vanessa Bazoomz. DelPlaya 04:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep per prior consensus. TSO1D 04:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Have we lost our collective deletionist mind? FFS stop nominating this for deletion, the list is unquestionably notable. Silensor 06:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior debate. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 07:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Round 4 is one round too many. The fact that this is still being debated is borderline WP:BULL. I disagree with this list being kept but seriously let's move on. Like I said on deletion review there is room within the Wikipedia Is Not Paper argument to keep ONE such list. Let this be the one we keep and move on to more important issues. MartinDK 07:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am so sick of AFD becoming "nominate til I get the result I want" bullshit. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior debate. --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 08:12, 28 December 2006 (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.