642:, for reasons that have nothing at all to do with the above assertion that this indicates bias against nude models. I question any list or category based on physical characteristics when that is not the purpose for the subjects' notability. I question in the strongest possible terms such a list or category when the subject can change that characteristic arbitrarily during their career. How many actresses have had long hair in some roles and short hair in others? Any criterion of distinction that is so mutable does not distinguish at all.
625:, in addition to the arguments raised above, this is not a defining characteristic, which makes this merely a random list of random people who happen (for whatever unknown reasons) to have one trivial point of commonality. Furthermore, it's not an inherent characteristic, but is subject to change without notice. There is no possible useful information to be gathered from this list; it is pure trivia. Fetishistic listcruft.
188:. It is a rather new list. Give us a chance to work on it, and suggest constructive changes instead. It is only a list article, not an encyclipedic article. It is not subjective, since it has well-defined criteria. If you wan't to delete a list article, plese refer to a formal Knowledge (XXG) criteria for that.
728:
This information is not compiled anywhere on the internet, but is spread over various long hair fetshism publications, discussion groups, etc. In some cases modelling agencies and similar state hair length in terms like "very long" or "long", but without a clearly defined criterion. Thus, it is not
305:
See that last comment you made is an easy cop out. Yes, we are about knowledge. Yes, we are about improving our quality. But we need to take away what really isn't essential. This isn't new knowledge, this is connecting things that alreadly exist and is extremely subjective and doesn't add to the
736:
The criterion is well-defined, and can be verified from photos, and in many cases form long hair fetishist publiciations. We have removed couple of articles that do not fulfill the requirements. No discussion has been raised about this, proofing that this is not an issue. Thus it fulfills
197:
No, it doesn't have well defined criteria. It doesn't really have criteria, the mere title of the article is almost enough for deletion. This is not useful, not encyclipedia, which you just admitted. If you look at the upper left hand corner you see "Knowledge (XXG) The Free
675:
254:
So, are you stating that
Knowledge (XXG) exists for any or all fetishes? This isn't a use of promotion for some guy to click links. It's acceptable to have an article about the fetish, but this is subjective to define "long" and just keep any maintance.
656:- I can assure you that all of these women, especially those with knee length hair, thigh length hair, etc, are famous for their very long hair, not only in long hair fetishism pages. They often get attention for their hair in main steam media.
744:
Two similar list articles were created a year ago, but with less well-defined criteria. One of them was deleted. If this article is deleted, it will probably be created over and over again by other people than
748:
The talk page of the article has the character of a WikiProject page, with a to-do list of articles about famous people that should be created. So the page will contribute to
Knowledge (XXG) biographic
646:
241:. I don't see the subjectivity. This is a list article, meaning that is lists encyclopedic articles. A list article may refer to a main article, which in this case seemes to be the article about
292:, etc. Please formulte a consistent principle regarding these lists. And please suggest how this article can be improved. I thought wikipedia was about improving articles rather than deleting.
325:- it is probably impossible to give an exact and verifiable defininition of the items in this list (the exact length of hair changes every day, in most cases nobody measures it etc.) - so
83:
78:
793:
absent an objective definition in secondary sources of how long is considered "very". And some sources for the list itself. And a credible reason for actually giving a shit.
87:
613:. Hair length is unlike physical anatomical height, and may vary if the subject decides to have it cut. Who's going to police the claim and remove those who have had it cut?
70:
245:. There is a large interest for this list, since many men adore women who decide to have long hair. Would the article be acceptable if it did not contain nude models?
513:
525:
490:
per nom and per
Ioannes Pragensis. Given how hair lengths can change drastically, said list would be in danger of on-going obsolescence.
545:
432:
17:
806:
785:
763:
714:
702:
682:
660:
634:
617:
597:
581:
564:
550:
494:
482:
466:
449:
437:
418:
406:
389:
377:
365:
345:
333:
315:
296:
264:
249:
225:
211:
192:
180:
166:
152:
140:
125:
52:
148:
The individual links are fine, but they stand alone without the subjective, incomplete and ephemeral (hairdressers) article.--
397:
The scope of the list is arbitrary, lacks any added value, lacks sources, and I'm not sure what useful purpose it serves.--
289:
74:
402:
821:
66:
58:
36:
459:
572:
per nom. Determining what length is long would be too subjective (and the list would still be utterly pointless). -
820:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
759:: Should the article be renamed "Women famous for their very long hair", or be transformed into a wikiproject?
521:
285:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
281:
237:. The criteria is simply "Famous women with waist length hair or longer". Famous mean that they must fulfill
277:
760:
657:
643:
479:
330:
293:
189:
163:
517:
711:
149:
386:
373:
per
Ioannes, should this also include any "famous" woman who every had long hair at any given point? --
177:
536:
136:
49:
414:
or I'll be forced to include my neighbors whose notability would be limited to waist-long hair
415:
357:
307:
256:
217:
203:
117:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
676:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers (3rd nomination)
781:
679:
614:
594:
776:; how do you measure hair length anyway (pulled straight, when in natural shape, or what?)
773:
730:
691:
606:
590:
238:
630:
610:
426:. What constitutes very long is biased, and a specific cutoff point would be arbitrary. -
573:
242:
738:
695:
671:
326:
801:
795:
491:
463:
342:
699:
540:
446:
427:
246:
341:- per Ioannes Pragensis. Listcruft like this in general is not terribly wondeful.
176:, per the nominator. Also, I think that the list wouldn't be very helpful anyway.
104:
670:- No absolute or verifiable requirements for inclusion means deletion as failing
777:
561:
398:
694:
and indiscriminate collection of information, and there seems little chance of
626:
374:
385:(I think your question is answered by the first sentence in the article)
162:: Okay, I have removed part of it. Do you now find the article okay?
507:
PLEASE add more names this is an INTERESTING search if I may say so
774:
Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information
445:
If this type of list should exist, it should be as a category. --
814:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
216:
I mean, are we talking about long or long cat loooooooooong?
725:
No strong argument for deleting it has been presented above.
458:
Said category does exits, and is also up for deletion. See
354:
100:
96:
92:
499:
KEEP. It very informitive to KNOW who has LONG HAIR
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
824:). No further edits should be made to this page.
504:I for one did not not know some of those ladies
8:
607:an indiscriminate collection of information
591:an indiscriminate collection of information
276:- Examples of other similar list articles:
356:, so tag on contested PROD as rationale.
290:List of big-bust models and performers
202:." This article doesn't belong here.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
720:Arguments for keeping the article
528:) 20:00, December 17, 2006 (UTC)
67:List of women with very long hair
59:List of women with very long hair
729:simply list cruft described in
1:
807:10:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
786:19:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
764:08:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
715:07:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
703:21:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
683:18:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
661:08:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
647:08:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
635:08:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
618:07:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
598:03:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
582:02:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
565:01:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
551:01:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
495:00:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
483:00:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
467:00:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
450:00:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
438:23:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
419:23:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
407:23:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
390:21:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
378:21:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
366:21:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
346:21:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
334:21:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
316:21:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
297:21:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
265:21:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
250:21:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
226:21:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
212:21:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
193:20:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
181:20:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
167:22:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
153:20:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
141:20:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
126:20:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
53:08:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
353:This article was also PROD'd
674:. Similar problems as with
841:
112:Subjective, uneyclopedic.
605:. Knowledge (XXG) is not
589:. Knowledge (XXG) is not
286:List of famous tall women
817:Please do not modify it.
282:List of famous short men
32:Please do not modify it.
306:quality of the 'pedia.
278:List of famous tall men
516:comment was added by
329:is an issue here. --
539:is unpersuasive. -
805:
611:original research
609:. It may even be
549:
529:
480:Danny Lilithborne
436:
331:Ioannes Pragensis
139:
832:
819:
799:
644:Serpent's Choice
543:
511:
430:
363:
360:
313:
310:
262:
259:
223:
220:
209:
206:
150:Anthony.bradbury
135:
123:
120:
108:
90:
34:
840:
839:
835:
834:
833:
831:
830:
829:
828:
822:deletion review
815:
761:Longhairadmirer
658:Longhairadmirer
633:
548:
512:—The preceding
435:
405:
361:
358:
311:
308:
294:Longhairadmirer
260:
257:
221:
218:
207:
204:
190:Longhairadmirer
164:Longhairadmirer
121:
118:
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
838:
836:
827:
826:
810:
809:
788:
767:
766:
753:
752:
751:
750:
746:
742:
734:
726:
717:
705:
685:
664:
663:
650:
649:
637:
629:
620:
600:
584:
567:
555:
554:
553:
544:
531:
530:
518:209.247.22.214
508:
505:
501:
500:
497:
485:
472:
471:
470:
469:
453:
452:
440:
431:
421:
409:
401:
392:
380:
368:
348:
336:
320:
319:
318:
300:
299:
270:
269:
268:
267:
243:hair fetishism
232:
231:
230:
229:
228:
183:
170:
169:
156:
155:
143:
137:Split Infinity
110:
109:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
837:
825:
823:
818:
812:
811:
808:
803:
798:
797:
792:
789:
787:
783:
779:
775:
772:
769:
768:
765:
762:
758:
755:
754:
747:
743:
740:
735:
732:
727:
724:
723:
721:
718:
716:
713:
712:62.135.48.117
709:
706:
704:
701:
697:
693:
689:
686:
684:
681:
677:
673:
669:
666:
665:
662:
659:
655:
652:
651:
648:
645:
641:
638:
636:
632:
628:
624:
621:
619:
616:
612:
608:
604:
601:
599:
596:
592:
588:
585:
583:
580:
579:
576:
571:
568:
566:
563:
560:per Mange01.
559:
556:
552:
547:
542:
538:
535:
534:
533:
532:
527:
523:
519:
515:
509:
506:
503:
502:
498:
496:
493:
489:
486:
484:
481:
477:
474:
473:
468:
465:
461:
457:
456:
455:
454:
451:
448:
444:
441:
439:
434:
429:
425:
422:
420:
417:
413:
410:
408:
404:
400:
396:
393:
391:
388:
384:
381:
379:
376:
372:
369:
367:
364:
355:
352:
349:
347:
344:
340:
337:
335:
332:
328:
324:
321:
317:
314:
304:
303:
302:
301:
298:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
272:
271:
266:
263:
253:
252:
251:
248:
244:
240:
236:
233:
227:
224:
215:
214:
213:
210:
201:
196:
195:
194:
191:
187:
184:
182:
179:
175:
172:
171:
168:
165:
161:
158:
157:
154:
151:
147:
144:
142:
138:
133:
130:
129:
128:
127:
124:
115:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
50:Mailer Diablo
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
816:
813:
794:
790:
770:
756:
719:
707:
687:
667:
653:
639:
622:
602:
586:
577:
574:
569:
557:
487:
475:
442:
423:
416:Alf photoman
411:
394:
387:193.10.250.5
382:
370:
350:
338:
322:
273:
234:
200:Encyclopedia
199:
185:
173:
159:
145:
131:
113:
111:
45:
43:
31:
28:
680:TerriersFan
615:Ohconfucius
595:Crystallina
537:WP:ILIKEIT
178:PullToOpen
749:articles!
478:per nom.
134:per nom.
757:Question
526:contribs
514:unsigned
510:John W.
492:Tabercil
464:Tabercil
343:Moreschi
700:Valrith
654:Comment
541:Amarkov
428:Amarkov
351:Comment
274:Comment
247:Mange01
160:Comment
84:protect
79:history
791:Delete
778:Veinor
771:Delete
731:WP:NOT
692:WP:NOT
690:since
688:Delete
668:Delete
640:Delete
623:Delete
603:Delete
587:Delete
578:scribe
570:Delete
562:Edison
488:Delete
476:Delete
447:Icarus
443:Delete
424:Delete
412:Delete
399:danntm
395:Delete
371:delete
339:Delete
323:Delete
239:WP:BIO
146:Delete
132:Delete
114:Delete
88:delete
46:delete
802:Help!
627:Xtifr
546:edits
433:edits
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
782:ヴエノル
739:WP:V
708:Keep
696:WP:V
672:WP:V
631:tälk
558:Keep
522:talk
460:here
383:keep
375:Dmz5
359:Yank
327:WP:V
309:Yank
258:Yank
235:Keep
219:Yank
205:Yank
186:Keep
174:Burn
119:Yank
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
48:. -
796:Guy
745:me.
575:WJB
362:sox
312:sox
261:sox
222:sox
208:sox
122:sox
784:)
722::
710:.
698:.
678:.
593:.
524:•
462:.
288:,
284:,
280:,
116:.
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
804:)
800:(
780:(
741:.
733:.
520:(
403:C
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.