Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of Playboy Playmates with D-cup or larger breasts

2171::This debate is being increasingly full of argumentum ad hominem, particularly on the part of Dekkappai. Throwing around words like "deletionists" and "people who are morally offended" seeks to undermine the input of those who support the deletion of this particular article and constitutes a personal attack. Those of us you accuse of "deletionism" have been keeping our comments focused firmly on the article itself and you would do well to follow suit. That aside, I certainly do not reject this page on moral grounds. Were it moral grounds, I would have to reject large numbers of useful articles on WP as well. I reject this because it is listcruft and unencyclopedic. There are plenty of places on the internet where one can make lists like this but they don't belong on an encyclopedia. Have a list of Playboy Playmates, sure. Even note their breast size on the list. It'll be tacky, and it'll lower the tone of the encyclopedia, but whatever, it's your Knowledge (XXG) too. But this kind of list, which is quite obviously a subjective "just the good ones" list masquerading as objective with its formal definition, is totally unnecessary and unencyclopedic. It does not belong on Knowledge (XXG). 2309:: the points made in that well written post were rational arguments based on well established wikipedia rationales. Far from being personal attacks, they pointed out the numerous personal attacks that have been made by editors wanting to delete this article. Thus, I don't see why you are so worked up by them. I also don't see why an admin should close this debate, as it is still attracting new input. Finally, I freely admit to asking a few users who have been active in working on this list and who were active in the previous deletion debate to come here. They have demonstrated a concern for this list in the past and, as such, it seemed like a reasonable courtesy to let them know about this discussion in case they were interested in contributing. I know you are trying to imply that this is some kind of ballot box stuffing, but given the specific users I targeted and the fact that the result has been a well-reasoned argument for keeping the list (as opposed to a conclusory vote providing no rationale such as "trivial", as most of the delete votes have been make it quite apparent that nothing inappropriate took place here. 1765:. Those of us you accuse of "deletionism" have been keeping our comments focused firmly on the article itself and you would do well to follow suit. That aside, I certainly do not reject this page on moral grounds. Were it moral grounds, I would have to reject large numbers of useful articles on WP as well. I reject this because it is listcruft and unencyclopedic. There are plenty of places on the internet where one can make lists like this but they don't belong on an encyclopedia. Have a list of Playboy Playmates, sure. Even note their breast size on the list. It'll be tacky, and it'll lower the tone of the encyclopedia, but whatever, it's your Knowledge (XXG) too. But this kind of list, which is quite obviously a subjective "just the good ones" list masquerading as objective with its formal definition, is totally unnecessary and unencyclopedic. 704:

attention if it were about artichokes or hitting statistics; I don't quite see what is uncivil about that. And I also don't appreciate the accusation of being engaged in a "smiling mamba" routine. Where is your evidence for this? I simply have an opinion that disagrees with your own. I presented pretty standard-issue wikipedia arguments to support this opinion. Although you chose to focus on my raising the possibility of censorship, which I stand behind, most of my vote dealt with the difficulty of setting objective standards (as any specific cut-off line can seem arbitrary). I also talked about the usefulness of subcategorizing large groups and made reference to the phneomenon of

185:: Missy with all due respect, being disgusting is not a deletion criteria, Knowledge (XXG) is not censored. That said, this seems pretty silly and highly arbitrary, the precident set in "famous people with red (black, ect) hair" seems to apply here, that if you group all possible groupings of people then you could have literally billions of meaniningless lists. Being a playboy playmate might make breast size more cogent, but breast size is not an important factor of a person anymore than haircolor or anything. I couldn't see anyone making a "list of playboy playmates with blue eyes" or that being acceptable as encyclopedic material. Just say no to listcruft. 1587:

entertainment is (dollar wise) a huge chunk of the entertainment industry, which indicates that there are a lot of consumers out there. Playboy playmates are arguably the best known specific grouping of adult entertainers. If this is an area of widespread interest (it is) and we have a large amount information to be sorted (we do in the long list of playmates), it makes sense to sort it in a manner that is useful to its users ... and since breasts are the first thing most users look at on a playmate (and big breasts are a feature that many consumers fetishize), this does not seem like an irrational categoriization.

2537:-- I agree that this list is somewhat distasteful and I personally find it offensive and sexist. However, this does not mean that it should be deleted. Playboy playmates are inherently notable, and there is a precedent for subsorting adult entertainers by bust size. Also, the size of playmates' breasts is verifiable. For these, and the various other reasons provided above (I see no need to rehash other editors' comments within my own, but I am taking them into account in expressing my opinion), this article should be kept. 624:

another editor who suggested using the word "large" instead of "big." That hardly speaks to a thought out consensus process. And neither of them even moved the article to the current title anyway. That happened two months after the "discussion." And I acknowledged that big breast fetishism is part of human sexuality. Lots of things that are part of human sexuality that don't merit Knowledge (XXG) articles. Arbitrary, non-notable, unverified cruft.

558:- I agree the list is a bit icky (as would a list of male performers with an endowment above a particular length) but that in itself is not reason for deletion. Notability, verifiability and cruftiness are. As others have noted, all Playboy Playmates are inherently notable. Having larger or smaller breasts than some arbitrarily-chosen size (why D? Why not C or DD or F or some other size?) doesn't make them extra-notable. This differes from the 2643:, this is something that should be categorized (at best) and not listed. There are no annotations, no non-article list items, all items are alphabetically sortable, list topic is redundant with some categories already available, poor precedent for alternate lists of similar topics (i.e., "do we justify lists for Playmates with C-cups, Hustler girls with every cup size, Bigguns with little'uns, etc?"), and finally, the list is founded on the 1956:-- being "sexist" is listed nowhere as a valid rationale for deletion on wikipedia. And I fail to see what is immature about defending an article that meets wikipedia standards for inclusion, especially when there is some evidence (see the very comment to which I am responding, made by the nom herself) that the quest to have this article deleted has been motivated to at least some extent by a desire to censor wikipedia. 1022:: how is this subjective when most of these playmates have data sheets including their bust size? why dont you just remove the playmates who do not have data sheets but are still included, thus removing the parts of this article that are subjective, rather than advocating deleiton of the entire thing. and "unencyclopedic" is conclusory. how is this unencycolopedic? it is certainly notable and verifiable. 605:--- when dealing with a list of people as long as all playmates, subcategorization is useful. Also, sorry to break it to you, but in the world of adult photos, breast size is a distinguishign characteristic (as evidenced by the long term survival of the more general list of big breast porn stars). Also, there is utility to sorting adult entertainers according to breast size because 2625:: playboy provides this data for its own playmates. how is this not a sufficiently reliable source? sure, some playmates on the list do not have complete data sheets that include bust size -- the solution is to remove those unsourced playmates, not to remove the entire list. thus, this argument is really an argument for cleaning the argument up, not for deleting it. 2216:: The points is not that it's disgusting (not legitimate cause for deletion, as acknowledged by everybody now), but that it is useless, non-encyclopedic listcruft. The potential for lists may be infinite, but that doesn't mean that the need for lists is. Also from Appropriate topics for lists, and quite necessary if one is to read your above quote in context, is: 488:, which seems to enjoy stronger consensus for remaining on wikipedia than the article we are discussing here. So, in a narrow sense, your hypotheticsl list has no relation to the instant case because there is no analogous publication and, in a broader sense, wikipedia consensus seems to support creating a penis list such as you seem to find so absurd. 2428:- I tried to read through all of the new comments interspersed willy-nilly with the older comments with no regard to chronology and my eyeballs exploded. This Afd is now 51 kb long, which is longer than most articles. You would think that this debate was about something that actually matters the way some people are carrying on. 2593:. If this is an important categorization criteria, I suggest dividing this page into sections, or noting this information next to the relavent entries. The principal reason for merge is to help individuals find the information they're looking for; the title of this article is something someone would be unlikely to enter. 903:"over-specific" is an argument because it makes it a not-particularly useful list (for anything other than hunting down particular editions of a certain magazine). I can imagine someone genuinely wanting to find information on models with large breasts, on on playboy playmates, but not the combination. It's like having a 2077:

Good. So, are you starting a debate on usefulness of the articles? Should we delete articles that are useful mostly to science graduates, or Malaysians, or Orthodox Christians? I hope you guys have run a research to find out that big-breasted Playmates sell more to horny 13 year olf kids or something

1924:

provides will be very useful in cleaning up the list and adding more info to it if it should survive. I'm in the middle of a large project at the moment and see no point in taking time to work on this list when it is in danger of deletion. But should the list survive, and if no one else will, I would

680:

and stop it with the personal attacks. My tone has been civil at every step. I am an experienced user with loads of good faith edits. I have provided justifications for my positions which are of the same ilk as plenty of arguments I have seen on other deletion debates -- there is nothing particularly

2550:

So we can change your "delete" to "keep," Maelin? By the way, I think your idea of creating lists on the Playmates with smaller busts is an excellent one too. My own area of specialization is more in the Asian category than the US/Playboy, but hopefully another editor will heed your advice. Regards.

1839:

The fact that this list is incomplete or could be better referenced in some places is hardly grounds for deletion -- how about we slap on a clean-up tag and let that collaboration that makes wikipedia work so well fix up this article...although you make an interesting point about the advantages of a

666:

and this isn't. As I also said, the big bust performers list may very well be problematic because of its being performer by genre, I don't know what the consensus is on that. If it concerns you that this is nominated and the other isn't, I'll go nominate it right now. As for whether an RBI or an ERA

609:

is a very real part of human sexuality. As for the arbitrariness of "D" cup, plese see the long discussion about this that on the page talk -- this was a consensus that derived from people wanting objective standards (more specific than "big breast"). Any time we use categories on wikipedia that use

2218:

Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. They feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the "list of shades of colours of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this

2014:

make it into an encyclopedia. It doesn't really matter if it stays or not, no one is going to be harmed by this article being here. But why bother defining Knowledge (XXG) as an encyclopedia when in reality it is just a collection of random information. Let's just give up trying to market ourselves

1586:

I agree with the above poster that many users will find this list useful. Actually, given the popularity of the general busty porn star list, I imagine this will turh out to be one of our more-used lists. Knowledge (XXG) has quite a bit of coverage of adult performers. This is perhaps because adult

1540:

I'm sure that a list of free porn sites would also be a "valuable resource for those interested in the topic", but that doesn't make it worthy of being on Knowledge (XXG). The difference between the KKK article and this is that the KKK article is not cruft that exists solely for 13 year olds. There

1406:

483:

this "penis size" argument is kind of weak. if there was some extremely notable magazine that, since the 1950s, had been taking nude photos of males and for most of that time had including statistics including the length of their penis, such a list probably would be notable and verifiable. however,

257:

states that all Playboy Playmates meet notability. Keep because: The original reason for nomination is invalid; This can't be converted to a category without messing up the organization (though it should probably be chronological than alpha-by-decade); While it may or may not be true that "breast

703:

I certainly didn't mean to be condescending with "sorry to break it to you" -- I aplologize if it came off that way. And, yes, I do think that there is some risk of censorship re wikipedia articles related to risque topics. I am sorry, but I simply dont believe this debate would be getting so much

623:

If breast size is such an important characteristic then where are the lists for A-cup, B-cup and C-cup Playmates? Why are only Playmates so lisified by cup size and no other women? As for the supposed consensus that formed around the issue, the "long discussion" was one editor who suggested it and

2492:

The hell with it. I don't care any more. Have your big tits list. What's one more porn resource on the internet, after all? It's obvious that most "keep" votes on this page are not driven by a desire to make WP a better encyclopedia, but rather by a love of convenient ways for finding pictures of

708:

as a justification for this list. Again, while you might not agree with them, can you please tell me how these are not standard-issue, fairly non offensive arguments of the same ilk as one sees all over wikipedia? Again, I apologize if my initial tone may have been a bit snappy, but it bothers me

610:

bright line objective standards there is sure to be a bit of apparent arbitrariness along the edges of those lines. This is precisely why consensus is important, and in this case the consensus is that breasts become notably large at "D". If you disagree with this consensus, challenge the cut off.

857:

Nowhere in wikipedia inclusion guidelines do I see anyting about whether content will cause people to make jokes about wikipedia. Nor do I see anythign about wikipedia serving only what this user considers to be "legitimate" needs. "Cruft" inc coclusory and contains no real argument. This being

562:

because that list is performers by genre. That in itself may also be problematic; I don't know what consensus is on model by genre. Regardless, the two aren't comparable. Verifiability is an issue. As noted, not all of the articles have sizes listed. Including a model with large breasts without

2118:

Playboy is a sexist American mgazine, founded in 1953 by Hugh Hefner, who is identified by feminist acitvists and a number humanist groups as a prime anti-woman influence, and his associates, mostly made up of porn-industry henchmen. It has grown into Playboy Enterprises Inc. and is one of the

1456:

people are going to object strongly, and either openly call it "disgusting," or use more acceptable terms like "listcruft," whether they apply or not. Again, because one group of people disapproves of the subject this is no reason for deletion. This is a subject on which it is hard to find an

1713:

to source it is an absurd claim. To those who think they are elevating Knowledge (XXG) by attempting to cleanse it of everything a traditional encyclopedia does not cover, I think history will prove you even more wrong than the librarians who banned Burroughs and Baum. They at least had the

484:

there is no such magazine, so the situation you describe is hardly analogous. on the other hand, if you wanted to create a list of male porn stars known for their large penises (i am sure there are some, though I know little about the subject), then you would be creating a list analogous to

2493:

boobs. I'm yet to see any lists of Playmates of the other breast sizes, no doubt because those determined to keep and contribute to this list find Playmates with smaller busts not nearly as interesting. I'm also yet to see a good reason why we need this particular list when we already have

1731:

Quite. This is being driven by people who are morally offended by the existence of the article. And moral offense is not a valid reason to delete the article. And it most certainly is verifiable--the Playboy data sheets that come with this issue are a source of info dating back decades.

2292:

This has gone on long enough. Could an admin please close this AfD? In light of the raging personal attacks above I frankly don't care about the result anymore. Reading that rambeling at times incoherent load of personal attacks left and right made me realize that it just isn't worth it.

648:

for deletion as well. Also, I would like to see you explain how this is so different from the ad nauseum listings of athletes by various statistics, etc. It seems clear that if this was about RBI or ERA rather than large breasts there would be little issue here. Censorship comes in many

1617:

This switch of the reason for deleting the article, after nomination, from "disgusting" to "useless to anyone but 'horny teenagers,'" is not only dishonest, and another intellectually lazy non-reason, it is bigoted. Has anyone asked for proof that this appeals only to "horny teens." Or

1530:

valuable resource for those with interest in the topic. also a well-maintained and frequently updated page. being "disgusting" is purely subjective and is not a valid criteria for deletion. i might find the KKK article distasteful, but i wouldn't want to delete it for just that reason.

2681:

all that firmly. The D up threshold is pretty arbitrary, and the information sources pretty outdated. And, over and above all that, someone really needs to establish why a list of big-busted Playmates is notable, and that with appropriate references, not just gut-feel or heresay. P.S.

1428:

Deletionists love to throw around unsubstantiated, subjective terms like "unmaintanable," and "listcruft" (or, even worse, "disgusting" and "puerile") rather than making a cogent argument as to why the deletion of a certain article would be a benefit to Knowledge (XXG).

563:

independent verification, based on looking at them or whatever, veers into OR territory. And this is fetishcruft. We've recently gotten rid of the fetishy lists of tall women and women with long hair. This is a more commonplace fetish or interest but it's still cruft.

316:

And how do you distinguish the notable playmates from the non-notable playmates given that we already established above that playmates are inherently notable. We already keep a list of playmates for that very reason, this is just listcruft derived from that list.

718:

I also apologize for any perception of my remarks as inappropraite or an attack on the person as oposed to the (perceived) attitude. Rather than clutter up this nom any further, if you want to continue to discuss this we can move it to your or my talk page.

2478:

quit fighting. This is not a page to tell me that I should nominate other articles. It is only here for everyone to post if they want to keep it or delete it and why. Dont get into pointless fights with people you dont know. It's not worth your time. Ever.

1649:

Well, neither is this one, by the definition Knowledge (XXG) gives. At best, this impulse to ban other users from obtaining information on subjects of which the banner disapproves stems from the sort of misguided prudish elitist do-goodism that kept

2501:

resource, as promoted by several of the "keep" voters, there just aren't enough tits lists on the net. Clearly this debate will go nowhere, because the vocal minority will continue to destroy the consensus of everyone else. So have your damn list.

2379:, bit was written in a lighter vain. I reasoned that if I make offers to fill in the blanks, instead of writing words like idiocy, confused and/or making accusations of dishonesty, it would go down better. Clearly, it didn't work that way everyone. 1093:-- how is this overly trivial? this is a subset of the best known grouping of american adult models listed by a characteristic that a lot of folks who are interested in looking at adult models (a huge industry in dollar terms) care about (see also 2184:: This is the kind of idiocy that makes Knowledge (XXG) the subject of jokes. There is no conceivable situation in which anybody would have a legitimate need for just the large breast Playmates in a convenient list. It's cruft and utterly puerile. 829:

This is the kind of idiocy that makes Knowledge (XXG) the subject of jokes. There is no conceivable situation in which anybody would have a legitimate need for just the large breast Playmates in a convenient list. It's cruft and utterly puerile.

2152:) was about these three things, not there moral or use value. Can we just stick to logical arguments, instead of proving our moral superiority? Repeating again like the ... (fill in yet another synonym for mentally challenged) arguments above: 1600:

To everyone saying "Keep" on the basis of how useful the list may be: The issue is not how "useful" the information is. The issue is whether the list is notable and whether the list is verifiable through multiple reliable independent sources.

709:

that you insist on attacking and attempting to discredit a "vote" (and I know it is not really that) that contains at least three arguments that a reasonable person would likely call legitimite (even if such a person did not agree with them).

1664:

be garbage which would rot young minds. At worst-- and this is the argument I am seeing here-- this impulse to ban stems from outright bigotry and intellectual dishonesty. Now we have people proposing deleting the article on grounds of

2112:, like big-busted models, female pornstars, Playboy Playmates and a lot more. Check the porn portal, fight against all those model articles that carry info on their body measurement, and may be rewrite the Playboy article to read like: 125: 2070:

Please, check out the essay on what Knowledge (XXG) is not before you start adding these comments. I guess, you'll find out faster that Knowledge (XXG) is nom place for such ... (fill in another synonym for mentally challenged)

92: 87: 1741:

Perhaps I'm not that familiar with the subject material, but aren't D-cup or larger kind of routine? I mean, if you created two lists of Playmates, one D or larger, and one C or smaller, wouldn't this list have most of them?

96: 1722:, on which it is difficult, if not impossible, to find reliable, unbiased, objective, non-commercial resources. Those who seek to purge Knowledge (XXG) of subjects like these are harming Knowledge (XXG), not improving it. 1153:

is fine, since big-bust modeling is a genre of its own (like it or not) - but this is merely a list over an arbitrary attribute. (Even if it's apparently not that disgusting, judging from an unusual abundance of votes...)

520:: most of these models do have cup size data provided by playboy. If some of them do not (and are thus not verifiable), the solution is to delete those models with unverifiable breast sizes, not to delete the entire list. 79: 1993:

over-specific and unnecessary listcruft. In other words, this list adds nothing useful to the general playmates list and does not describe a notable category. Therefore it should be deleted as unencyclopedic.

1448:. Clearly the subject is neither indiscriminate (the criteria for inclusion on the list are quite clearly spelled out, quite limited, and quite verifiable), and clearly the subject is useful and of interest to a 2371:

was taken from quite a few comments above. I am sorry that it didn't come through that way. But, I'm still happy that the consumate effect of mal-argument did come through, which is happening for most part

367:

Ideally, I think a list a Playmates would be preferable in tabular form with measurements. If that were permitted I would not oppose deleting this list. However, The closest that is acceptable is monthly

1939:

I am a freshman in high school, and as a female, i think that the article i nominated is a sexist page. I think it is very immature for everyone to get into arguments on the articles for deletion page.

422:: Maybe disgusting isnt a reason, but it is inappropriate to have a list on here even if wikipedia doesn't have censorship. A list of playboy playmates would be more acceptable, like another user said. 2198:

here. If you wish to discuss that article, feel free to do it on its talk page. This article is non-encyclopedic, and puerile besides. Knowledge (XXG) has no more need of it than it has need of

1545:

of websites on the internet where you could put a list of big-breasted Playmates. Knowledge (XXG) is not the place for it. Also, the original nomination criterion may not be valid but that does

595:

simply mentioning listcruft does not an argument make. What is your argument (eg something rooted in ntoability / verifiability perhaps?) for deleting this article? 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

1255:, given that even Playboy themselves note their bustier Playmates with special editions (Playboy's Voluptuous Vixens) I don't see an issue with Knowledge (XXG) categorizing them as such either 890:-- nowhere in wikipedia guidelines do I see "overly specific" as a basis for deletion. notability and verifiability, my friend. Also, "listcruft" alone is ocnclusory and is no real argument. 694:

in the Knowledge (XXG) spirit. I don't take kindly to people doing the smiling mamba routine, especially when they retreat behind the skirts of Mother Civility when they're called out on it.

1761:. Throwing around words like "deletionists" and "people who are morally offended" seeks to undermine the input of those who support the deletion of this particular article and constitutes a 2251:

Some has also raised questions about the integrity of WP as an encyclopedia. I would suggest that they read the essay on why Knowledge (XXG) is so great, and take a notice of the term

1283:-- if you look at playmates over the years, a minority have breasts that meet this threshold, as evidenced by statistics compiled from playmate datasheets, which are available here: 392:

articles for 3.5 of the 4 major sports (baseball lists half player of the month, but not pitcher of the month). However, baseball has been able to get articles that are equally odd

667:

article would pass Afd, that's completely irrelevant and you know it (or you ought to). Articles stand and fall on their own merits, not whether another article exists or not.

2404:

wasn't exactly a thoughtful comment free of personal attacks (which got the user angry by the user's own definition), but it surely can be excused in light of these things.

1828:

But I still haven't seen any argument to maintain this as a list rather than a category. What does a list (requiring separate maintenance) give us that a category wouldn't?

681:

unusual or blameworthy about them. Hopefully in the future your actions will be more in line with the spirit of collegiality that is so important to a successful wikipedia.

985:

why is this a rationale for deletion? the big bust models list is actually for porn stars, not playboy-style models, so the playmates wouldnt make it on that list anyway.

2383:

It seems that MartinDK made the same comment on the integrity of WP in an earlier debate, and some other Wikipedian actually agreed to it, instead of quoting an essay on

1912:

I've made enough comments here, and see that this is getting into argument for argument's sake (i.e., labeling users of this list "horny 13-year-olds," and then accusing

1483: 1486:. We are an encyclopedia, not a convenient index of pornography for horny 13 year olds. This kind of list is unnecessary and it contributes nothing to Knowledge (XXG). 2206:. We are an encyclopedia, not a convenient index of pornography for horny 13 year olds. This kind of list is unnecessary and it contributes nothing to Knowledge (XXG). 270:

per Wintermut3. It is this kind of arbitrary listcruft that makes people ridicule Knowledge (XXG). This is an encyclopedia not this weeks issue of Teen Boy Fantasies.

1209:. Also, do you seriously deny that a particulary notable characteristic of playmates to people who look at them (a large slice of the population) is their breasts? 355:

is a notable fetish. Why is a list that addresses the topic of breast fetishism in the context of (arguably) the most well-known group of adult models so trivial?

1701:

are central to the popularity of the Playmate, so a list on the subject is entirely appropriate. And then we come to another bogus claim beloved of deletionists:

152:

My changed reason is that it is inappropriate. There should instead be a list of Playboy Playmates. Sorry about the bad format, never nominated something before.

2690: 2655: 2629: 2615: 2597: 2579: 2565: 2555: 2541: 2527: 2517: 2483: 2467: 2444: 2432: 2419: 2329: 2313: 2301: 2283: 2019: 1998: 1981: 1960: 1943: 1929: 1904: 1892: 1878: 1864: 1844: 1832: 1823: 1814: 1805: 1796: 1783: 1746: 1736: 1726: 1605: 1591: 1578: 1564: 1535: 1522: 1501: 1465: 1423: 1391: 1367: 1351: 1329: 1313: 1290: 1271: 1259: 1243: 1227: 1213: 1194: 1174: 1158: 1137: 1121: 1101: 1081: 1065: 1049: 1026: 1010: 989: 973: 957: 941: 919: 894: 878: 862: 845: 817: 797: 767: 751: 723: 713: 698: 685: 671: 653: 639: 628: 614: 579: 567: 540: 524: 508: 492: 471: 447: 426: 412: 400: 359: 339: 321: 308: 287: 274: 262: 245: 223: 207: 189: 176: 156: 143: 61: 1690: 1819:

OK, I promise to check the list against Knowledge (XXG)'s individual Playmate articles and update accordingly. It's a tough job, but someone's got to do it.

463:

article and you will find links to perfectly fine lists of playmates. Like I said this is just listcruft derived from those lists and articles. What is next?

658:

Oh boo hoo, my big tittie list is up for deletion, I better cry "censorship" and see if I can get that shit to stick. Sorry, but I have no sympathy for that

662:. As I already said if you'd bothered to read it, I see a difference between this list and the list of big bust models and performers because the latter is 1457:

objective, non-commercial, sourced reference. As long as the list is arranged in an informative way (this one is), and is sourced (this one is), this is

1669:. Apparently applying the label of "horny teenagers" to defenders of this list is meant to other bully editors from stating some very obvious facts: 1) 48:, as pretty comprehensively established below, the D-cup threshold is entirely arbitrary (and porn industry vital statistics are not reliable anyway). 1396:

The points is not that it's disgusting (not legitimate cause for deletion, as acknowledged by everybody now), but that it is useless, non-encyclopedic

2415:- before you make accusations of personal attack. Throwing accusations like that casually can obfiscate the debate on hand (like it is doing now). - 2385: 1574:

Like it or not, some people will find this list useful. Knowledge (XXG) should not go around deleting articles because certain users are offended.

2363:

was taken from the original poster of the deletion proposal. The technique of repeating the same adjective was taken from the the repeating of the

2325:

have been percieved. I am not saying you stack votes, that would be a serious personal attack. Your friend and I grossly misunderstood each other.

1622:

it's OK to delete an article because it appeals to "horny teens?" This line of reasoning is a cousin to banning Spanish because it's of no use to

2092:. Please, learn to argue right before you propose something as drastic as a deletion, especially when there are plenty good argument against it ( 83: 1479: 2389:. So there was reason for the user to get angry at a lack of understanding on my part. Thoough I still don't understand why he terms you as my 2232:

I guess, if someone makes a slander at you and says, it was not personal, the wise thing to do id taking it extremely personally. Once again -

369: 2248:

himself). We are expressing opinions here, not voting. Otherwise, all of you would have been barred from giving your vote twice or more times.

1401: 1380: 1187: 396:

instead. This list is not different than what is convention in an atmosphere where we do not allow the monthly awardees their own articles.

124:

tried to nominate this article for deletion but didn't format/complete the nom correctly. I make no suggestion as to its dispostion. Note:

1888:

per above arguments in favor of keeping. Notable and verifiable. Most arguments for deleting this list dont seem to say much substantively.

75: 67: 1384: 2293:

Congratulations, you managed to not only prove my point about Knowledge (XXG) but to do so in such a thorough and powerful way. Thanks to

1792:, I find four listed as D or DD, only two of whom are in this list. It seems the list is selective or incomplete. A category wouldn't be. 1286:. And if you really think D cup is too small to be noteworthy, why not propose changing the criteria to DD instead of proposing deletion. 1167: 2031:. Most of the arguments above in favor of delete are, I must say, as strange as strange goes. And, if I may make an excuse to be crass - 2010:

This debate more than the existance of this article has proven the complete confusion over what Knowledge (XXG) actually is. This would

2402:

Reading that rambeling at times incoherent load of personal attacks left and right... A new low point in the history of Knowledge (XXG)

1446: 1379:"Disgusting" is no reason for deletion. The criteria for the list are clearly defined: Playboy Playmate, D-cup or larger. According to 635:

When has the lack of one list justified the deletion of another? No A cup list, so delete the D cup + one seems a bit strange to me

17: 258:

size is not an important factor in a person", it's certainly more relevant to one's career as a porn star than eye or hair color.

2355:

parts of my comment. I guess, I'll have to change my writing style to stop me from miscommunicating. Let me explain myself a bit:

2408: 2226: 1061:-- nowhere in wikipedia guidelines is "too much" listed as a valid criteria for deletion. What does this even mean? conclusory. 904: 1660:

series out of the reach of children in libraries for decades. These books were too popular. Kids liked them too much, so they

1383:, "The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination." 1471: 1442: 1150: 645: 559: 485: 464: 296: 1387:. If one finds this subject "disgusting," one should not be searching on "Playboy Playmates with D-cup or larger breasts." 908: 2102:. Just slap a {{Cleanup}} or {{unsourced}} notice there. It's easy, and less drastic. Why talk of deletion at this point? 2512: 1778: 1559: 1496: 1418: 840: 351:-- how is this trivial? playmates are certainly notable and the statistics are verifiable per playboy's all data. Also, 171: 2705: 1325:-- oh, so wikipedia is too elitist to provide resources that might be useful to these 13 year olds and the likeminded? 36: 1874:

This is not a valid rationale for deletion. If it is notable and verifiable, it does not matter if it is about tits.

2607:- quoted bust sizes are notoriously unreliable. I have no problem with the list as such but it has to go as failing 1810:

Did you just fix 1999, or did you review all fifty years? A category would be self-maintaining on an ongoing basis.

236:

Per Wintermut3. However, it has to be said this list is remarkable in that every entry has an existing wikiarticle.

2651:

violation that "big breasts" must be D-cup or larger and that the resulting list is Playmates with "big breasts".

2626: 2310: 2294: 2268: 2015:

as an encyclopedia and be honest about what this project really is... a searchable database of random information.

1957: 1921: 1875: 1841: 1789: 1364: 1326: 1287: 1240: 1210: 1134: 1098: 1062: 1023: 986: 954: 891: 859: 814: 764: 710: 682: 650: 611: 521: 489: 444: 356: 220: 1113:

I hate calling things cruft, so I won't, it is a fairly trivial list that serves no encyclopaedic purpose at all.

388:. I note that it is not currently WP convention to have articles for such monthly winners. Thus, we do not have 2686:- argument is still unacceptable. P.P.S. Sorry about my last comment, it was not posted with a good intention. - 2275:

has written here. If you have valid argument against those comments go forward, if you don't, please, take your

2704:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

2043:

What? Are you guys gone completely ... (fill in a synonym for mentally challenged)? A list is supposed to be a

35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

1239:-- "who needs this" provides absolutely no basis for removing this material. what does this mean? conclusory. 2440:

With all due respect, don't knock the importance of sex or boobs. Without them, none of us would be here. ;)

1478:

article is non-encyclopedic, and puerile besides. Knowledge (XXG) has no more need of it than it has need of

1519: 1348: 2538: 2124:

Anyways, jokes apart (though I enjoyed rewriting the Playboy article) - the ground for deletion should be

763:-- why is this cruft? please expand. As it stands you have provided no substantive argument for deletion. 537: 1709:

is this unverifiable? If you mean it is not yet properly sourced, that can be remedied. But saying it is

1644: 1430: 1754: 1171: 299:. There are objective standards. Also, these women constitute many of Playboy's more notable models. 1400:. The potential for lists may be infinite, but that doesn't mean that the need for lists is. Also from 1302:— Vital information for every 13-year-old lad who comes to read wikipedia. Otherwise useless trivia. — 677: 912: 504:

No reliable sources for breast size of persons in list. Some have no mention of cup size in articles.

1651: 1635: 1634:

don't want to see it, so it's not useful) are despicable and fundamentally against the principles of

1461:

the kind of subject in which Knowledge (XXG) has an advantage over traditional, print encyclopedias.

1045: 2407:

Just one more point for any more newbie who may join this discussion - please check the policy page

1677:

popular, long-running magazine. It has become an institution unto itself. Lists on this subject are

1626:

only to-- eeeewwww-- foreigners. And who needs information on Islam, since it's only of interest to

254: 148:

Missy1234 later posted a changed reason for the nomination on the talk page. I have pasted it here.

1170:? (note I said model and not playmate) If this is kept, perhaps it should be split into cup sizes? 747: 2297:

for asking you on your talk page to come here. A new low point in the history of Knowledge (XXG).

2344: 1889: 1840:

category. I would support creating a category if this list does not survive the deletion debate.

1516: 1224: 938: 787: 284: 2347:

is response to my apologies for hurting the user's feelings. The user was basically poitning at

2575:. It's a very useful resource for those interested in both Playboy and large-busted models. -- 690:

Yeah, condescending comments like "sorry to break it to you" and accusations of censorship are

2687: 2590: 2464: 2416: 2280: 1901: 1588: 1002: 409: 397: 132:

I have nominated this article for deletion. it is disgusting and i think it should be deleted

29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

2648: 2612: 2523:"a love of convenient ways for finding pictures of boobs".----Yup. God bless the Internet. 2508: 2494: 1861: 1774: 1555: 1492: 1414: 1307: 1206: 1094: 915:, yes, but the combination is unnecessary, even if some articles fall into both categories. 836: 705: 606: 352: 306: 167: 2640: 2229:

which categorically negated his point(s). Jumping to conclusions is easy, research is not.

1762: 1714:

justification of limited shelf-space for their book-banning. You do not. Knowledge (XXG)'s

376:

and associated pages and in my undeletion campaign for such pages I compared these monthly

200: 2576: 2053:

So, from when Playmate breast sizes have gone trivial? People are continously repeating -

1995: 1256: 1078: 1040: 953:-- please explain why this is listcruft. As it is, your argument is extremely conclusory. 636: 186: 2644: 1397: 2108:

Most right. But, to hold this argument valid we should also be taking long hard look at

2552: 2480: 2441: 2272: 1940: 1926: 1758: 1723: 1532: 1462: 1388: 1114: 934: 423: 373: 242: 153: 133: 121: 2608: 2159:

Let me just one of those arguments, spread over half a dozen comments here, posted by

2562: 2429: 2340: 2326: 2298: 2016: 1978: 1829: 1811: 1793: 1743: 1685:

2) The Playboy Playmate is central to its popularity. Merely appearing as a Playmate

1602: 1268: 1191: 970: 916: 875: 780: 720: 695: 668: 625: 576: 564: 468: 318: 271: 56: 50: 2204:

List of adult magazines featuring full-frontal nudity that cost less than $ 10/issue

1484:

List of adult magazines featuring full-frontal nudity that cost less than $ 10/issue

408:

What was wrong with the prior deletion attempt other than that it was unsuccessful.

2652: 2594: 1656: 1638:

which Knowledge (XXG) claims to espouse. "Ah," but the deletionists will counter, "

1363:-- this flippant statement contains no argument based on valid wikipedia criteria. 1342:- need help finding big breasts, don't take away this incredibly valuable resource. 1155: 259: 140: 113: 1977:

Could you be more specific? And possibly discover the joy of signing your posts?

443:

Inappropriate is also not a reason. Notability and veriiability, my dear friend.

2503: 2245: 2244:. Please, understand that WP is not a democracy as voting goes (this comes from 2160: 1769: 1550: 1487: 1474:

here. If you wish to discuss that article, feel free to do it on its talk page.

1409: 1303: 1284: 1267:. I cannot see that D-cups are exceptional or noteworthy among this population. 831: 505: 336: 301: 162: 2321:

Please see my talk page for a reply and a link to how my initial comment today

2524: 2412: 2061: 1917: 1820: 1802: 1733: 1575: 204: 2459:

are complaining about attacks, style and length more than those in favor of

393: 969:

There are already list of big bust models and a list of Playboy Playmates.

2057:- without convincingly explainign why it's trivial. Is this one of those 1404:, and quite necessary if one is to read your above quote in context, is: 460: 128:

resulted in No Consensus. Her reason given on the article's talk page:

2064:

techniques that says - repeat something enough times to make it a fact?

2058: 279:

Dear me, what encyclopaedia worth its salt would include this article?

2148:. The previous deletion discussion about the list (which was titled - 1381:

Knowledge (XXG):Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists

1433:

is a term used by some editors to describe lists which they feel are

2163:, will be good exercise to press the point that this is disgusting. 2082:

This should be merged with Playboy and/or List of big-busted models.

2698:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

2146:"God will strike you down for having such filthy things in here" 2669:

of most nay-sayers. But, it seems the list has not established

2176:

Now, please, read this comment in light of his other comments.

1920:

arguments). However, I'd like to point out that the link that

1133:: see my arguments above regarding accusations of triviality. 2497:

Playboy related lists, but it seems that even with the noble

1681:

to those many, and various types of people with interest in

2498: 937:, objectionable content is not justification for deletion. 813:

How is this cruft? see my response to similar votes above.

2200:

List of pornography websites that don't require membership

1480:

List of pornography websites that don't require membership

2349:... (fill in yet another synonym for mentally challenged) 1693:. 3) And-- avert thine eyes here, o ye faint of heart-- 2561:

Again, something that would be easier with categories.

1188:

List of Playboy Playmates with A-cup or smaller breasts

109: 105: 101: 1439:

of interest only to a very restricted number of people

76:

List of Playboy Playmates with D-cup or larger breasts

68:

List of Playboy Playmates with D-cup or larger breasts

1168:

List of Playboy models with A-cup or smaller breasts

933:as listcruft. Nothing to do with the nomination by 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2219:list contributes to the state of human knowledge.' 2110:all other sexist articles and lists and categories 1452:of people. Also, clearly, in a subject like this, 2068:Knowledge (XXG) is no place for a list like this. 1407:list contributes to the state of human knowledge. 2708:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2367:argument. And, the idea of directing it against 2343:has a point which he has already pointed out on 1691:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (pornographic actors) 1689:passes a model of notability requirements under 536:, listcruft. Why just D-cup should be notable?-- 2115: 1445:is the 16th most-viewed article in the project 2075:This is useful only to horny 13 year old kids. 2263:. I'd propose to all those who'd like to say 858:"puerile" is not a valid basis for deletion. 8: 394:Home_runs#Single_game_or_season_achievements 1753:This debate is being increasingly full of 1205:how is this an "arbitrary attribute". see 2182:His verdict was Delete and his reason was 2119:world's leading system of demeaning women 1925:be willing to take time to do that work. 905:list of fictional detectives from Belgium 2279:somewhere else, and save us the pain. - 1718:is in covering non-traditional subjects 1549:mean the page doesn't warrant deletion. 2240:Some Wikipedians here are discussing a 2196:List of big-bust models and performers 1767:It does not belong on Knowledge (XXG). 1515:per TJ and lack of reliable sources. 1472:List of big-bust models and performers 1443:List of big-bust models and performers 1151:List of big-bust models and performers 1001:per TJ, subjective, and uneyclopedic. 676:Wow...maybe you should have a look at 646:List of big-bust models and performers 560:List of big-bust models and performers 486:List of big-bust models and performers 465:List of male porn actors by penis size 297:List of big-bust models and performers 2665:. It seems I got carried away by the 2259:Good luck to all. Keep fighting, but 2033:These delete arguments are disgusting 1190:would be an extremely short article. 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 2150:List of big-busted Playboy Playmates 575:- listcruft does not make me horny. 335:Playmates would be more acceptable. 2409:Knowledge (XXG):No personal attacks 2386:what makes Knowledge (XXG) so great 2227:Knowledge (XXG):No personal attacks 2100:This list is unverified/ incomplete 295:, it's similar to another article 24: 372:by decade. On the talk pages at 2236:. Tow more points I must raise: 2084:OK. But, that's an argument for 2234:These nay-sayers are disgusting 1385:Knowledge (XXG) is not censored 1757:, particularly on the part of 1: 2691:10:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC) 2656:00:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC) 2630:23:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC) 2616:23:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC) 2598:17:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC) 2580:09:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC) 2566:05:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC) 2556:23:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC) 2542:23:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC) 2528:00:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC) 2518:23:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC) 2484:22:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC) 2468:19:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC) 2445:19:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC) 2433:19:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC) 2420:18:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC) 2330:18:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC) 2314:17:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC) 2302:15:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC) 2284:15:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC) 2154:This discussion is disgusting 2020:12:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC) 1999:07:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC) 1982:12:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC) 1961:21:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 1944:21:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 1930:20:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 1905:17:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 1893:05:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC) 1879:16:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 1865:16:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 1845:15:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 1833:15:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC) 1824:20:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 1815:14:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 1806:06:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 1797:04:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 1784:00:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 1747:22:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC) 1737:22:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC) 1727:17:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC) 1606:16:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC) 1592:14:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC) 1579:10:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC) 1565:08:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC) 1536:07:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC) 1523:03:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC) 1502:01:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC) 1466:00:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC) 1424:00:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC) 1392:23:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 1368:18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 1352:22:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 1330:18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 1314:20:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 1291:18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 1272:16:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 1260:15:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 1244:18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 1228:12:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 1214:18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 1195:18:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 1175:03:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 1159:01:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 1138:18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 1122:00:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 1102:18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 1082:17:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC) 1066:18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 1050:07:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC) 1027:18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 1011:07:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC) 990:18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 974:03:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC) 958:18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 942:03:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC) 920:05:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC) 895:18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 879:02:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC) 863:18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 846:02:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC) 818:17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 798:23:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC) 768:17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 752:23:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC) 724:16:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 714:15:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 699:14:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 686:21:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC) 672:02:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC) 654:00:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC) 640:15:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 629:00:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC) 615:22:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC) 580:21:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC) 568:21:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC) 541:21:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC) 525:17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 509:21:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC) 493:17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 472:20:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC) 448:17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 427:19:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC) 413:18:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC) 401:18:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC) 360:17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 340:16:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC) 322:14:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC) 309:13:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC) 288:12:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC) 275:10:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC) 263:09:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC) 246:07:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC) 224:17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 208:07:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC) 190:06:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC) 177:08:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC) 157:19:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC) 144:05:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC) 62:11:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC) 2411:, as well as the article on 2055:trivial, trivial, trivial... 1402:Appropriate topics for lists 384:winners to athletes who win 2397:should've shown otherwise. 2255:, not just an encyclopedia. 2225:He also provided a link to 2214:Another of his comments was 874:, over-specific listcruft. 644:Then you'd better nominate 253:. It's not a coincidence; 219:: see my rationales below. 2725: 2663:Position changed to delete 370:List of people in Playboy 331:way to trivial. A list of 203:to be in an encyclopedia. 199:per above, this seems too 1790:the 12 playmates for 1999 1166:is there a corresponding 2701:Please do not modify it. 2267:- please, read whatever 2194:: We are not discussing 2029:STRONG & SPEEDY KEEP 1630:Arguments of this sort ( 32:Please do not modify it. 2192:One of his ocmemnts was 1954:Comment -- NON ARGUMENT 1900:per BCoates and Vidor. 1872:Comment -- NON ARGUMENT 1361:comment -- NON ARGUMENT 1237:comment -- NON ARGUMENT 1097:. conclusory argument. 1091:comment -- NON ARGUMENT 1059:comment -- NON ARGUMENT 1020:comment -- NON ARGUMENT 951:comment -- NON ARGUMENT 888:comment -- NON ARGUMENT 855:comment -- NON ARGUMENT 382:Cyber Girl of the Month 241:per BCoates' argument. 136:23:46, 15 December 2006 2393:, especially when his 2136:, not opinions like - 2122: 1470:We are not discussing 1077:as overly trivial. -- 779:pathetic listcruft. — 2627:Interestingstuffadder 2463:. Any explanation? - 2311:Interestingstuffadder 2295:Interestingstuffadder 2269:Interestingstuffadder 2051:This list is trivial. 1958:Interestingstuffadder 1922:Interestingstuffadder 1876:Interestingstuffadder 1842:Interestingstuffadder 1788:In scrolling through 1755:argumentum ad hominem 1720:exactly like this one 1365:Interestingstuffadder 1327:Interestingstuffadder 1288:Interestingstuffadder 1241:Interestingstuffadder 1211:Interestingstuffadder 1135:Interestingstuffadder 1099:Interestingstuffadder 1063:Interestingstuffadder 1024:Interestingstuffadder 987:Interestingstuffadder 955:Interestingstuffadder 892:Interestingstuffadder 860:Interestingstuffadder 815:Interestingstuffadder 765:Interestingstuffadder 711:Interestingstuffadder 683:Interestingstuffadder 651:Interestingstuffadder 612:Interestingstuffadder 522:Interestingstuffadder 490:Interestingstuffadder 445:Interestingstuffadder 378:Playmate of the Month 357:Interestingstuffadder 221:Interestingstuffadder 2455:. Those in favor of 2169:His last comment was 2041:This list is a list. 1673:is more than just a 1652:Edgar Rice Burroughs 1636:Intellectual freedom 909:Fictional detectives 441:ANOTHER NON ARGUMENT 2377:mentally challenged 2369:the very discussion 745:- One word: cruft. 390:Player of the Month 386:Player of the Month 1349:Jefferson Anderson 1343: 1223:, who needs this. 913:Fictional Belgians 678:wikipedia:civility 664:performer by genre 2591:Playboy Playmates 2516: 2353:... is disgusting 2221: 2207: 2185: 2172: 2142:"It's disgusting" 2047:, for God's sake. 1782: 1563: 1500: 1422: 1338: 1048: 844: 750: 538:Ioannes Pragensis 175: 60: 2716: 2703: 2506: 2212: 2190: 2180: 2167: 1772: 1642:articles aren't 1553: 1490: 1441:." The article: 1412: 1207:breast fetishism 1119: 1095:breast fetishism 1044: 1008: 1005: 834: 794: 790: 784: 746: 706:breast fetishism 607:breast fetishism 353:breast fetishism 165: 117: 99: 54: 34: 2724: 2723: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2706:deletion review 2699: 2684:It's about tits 2539:Mister Nice Guy 2106:This is sexist. 1916:of instigating 1763:personal attack 1115: 1006: 1003: 792: 788: 782: 90: 74: 71: 44:The result was 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2722: 2720: 2711: 2710: 2694: 2693: 2659: 2658: 2633: 2632: 2619: 2618: 2601: 2600: 2583: 2582: 2569: 2568: 2545: 2544: 2531: 2530: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2381: 2380: 2373: 2359:The adjective 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2257: 2256: 2249: 2223: 2222: 2209: 2208: 2187: 2186: 2174: 2173: 2138:"It's useless" 2114: 2113: 2103: 2097: 2079: 2072: 2065: 2048: 2037: 2036: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2002: 2001: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1948: 1947: 1933: 1932: 1907: 1895: 1882: 1881: 1868: 1867: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1826: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1595: 1594: 1581: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1525: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1435:indiscriminate 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1355: 1354: 1344:oops, I meant 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1317: 1316: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1275: 1274: 1262: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1231: 1230: 1217: 1216: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1178: 1177: 1161: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1125: 1124: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1085: 1084: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1053: 1052: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1014: 1013: 995: 994: 993: 992: 977: 976: 963: 962: 961: 960: 945: 944: 935:User:Missy1234 927: 926: 925: 924: 923: 922: 898: 897: 882: 881: 868: 867: 866: 865: 849: 848: 823: 822: 821: 820: 801: 800: 773: 772: 771: 770: 755: 754: 748:Split Infinity 739: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 633: 632: 631: 618: 617: 599: 598: 597: 596: 583: 582: 570: 552: 551: 550: 549: 544: 543: 530: 529: 528: 527: 512: 511: 498: 497: 496: 495: 475: 474: 453: 452: 451: 450: 431: 430: 416: 415: 403: 374:Playboy Online 362: 342: 326: 325: 324: 304: 290: 277: 265: 248: 229: 228: 227: 226: 211: 210: 193: 192: 160: 159: 138: 137: 119: 118: 70: 65: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2721: 2709: 2707: 2702: 2696: 2695: 2692: 2689: 2685: 2680: 2676: 2672: 2671:verifiability 2668: 2664: 2661: 2660: 2657: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2635: 2634: 2631: 2628: 2624: 2621: 2620: 2617: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2603: 2602: 2599: 2596: 2592: 2588: 2585: 2584: 2581: 2578: 2574: 2571: 2570: 2567: 2564: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2554: 2549: 2543: 2540: 2536: 2533: 2532: 2529: 2526: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2514: 2510: 2505: 2500: 2496: 2491: 2487: 2485: 2482: 2477: 2474: 2470: 2469: 2466: 2462: 2458: 2454: 2446: 2443: 2439: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2431: 2427: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2418: 2414: 2410: 2405: 2403: 2398: 2396: 2392: 2388: 2387: 2378: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2362: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2345:his talk page 2342: 2341:User:MartinDK 2331: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2312: 2308: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2300: 2296: 2291: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2254: 2250: 2247: 2243: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2235: 2230: 2228: 2220: 2215: 2211: 2210: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2188: 2183: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2170: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2162: 2157: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2134:verifiability 2131: 2127: 2121: 2120: 2111: 2107: 2104: 2101: 2098: 2095: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2080: 2076: 2073: 2069: 2066: 2063: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2049: 2046: 2042: 2039: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2027: 2026: 2021: 2018: 2013: 2009: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2000: 1997: 1992: 1991:Strong Delete 1989: 1988: 1983: 1980: 1976: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1968: 1967: 1962: 1959: 1955: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1945: 1942: 1938: 1935: 1934: 1931: 1928: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1908: 1906: 1903: 1899: 1896: 1894: 1891: 1890:Quepasahombre 1887: 1884: 1883: 1880: 1877: 1873: 1870: 1869: 1866: 1863: 1859: 1856: 1846: 1843: 1838: 1834: 1831: 1827: 1825: 1822: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1813: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1804: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1795: 1791: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1780: 1776: 1771: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1745: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1735: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1703:unverifiable. 1700: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1663: 1659: 1658: 1653: 1648: 1646: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1616: 1613: 1612: 1607: 1604: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1593: 1590: 1585: 1582: 1580: 1577: 1573: 1570: 1566: 1561: 1557: 1552: 1548: 1544: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1534: 1529: 1526: 1524: 1521: 1518: 1517:Mike Christie 1514: 1511: 1503: 1498: 1494: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1464: 1460: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1420: 1416: 1411: 1408: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1375: 1374: 1369: 1366: 1362: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1353: 1350: 1347: 1341: 1337: 1336: 1331: 1328: 1324: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1315: 1311: 1310: 1305: 1301: 1298: 1297: 1292: 1289: 1285: 1282: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1273: 1270: 1266: 1263: 1261: 1258: 1254: 1251: 1250: 1245: 1242: 1238: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1229: 1226: 1225:Testikayttaja 1222: 1219: 1218: 1215: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1176: 1173: 1172:132.205.93.88 1169: 1165: 1162: 1160: 1157: 1152: 1148: 1145: 1144: 1139: 1136: 1132: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1123: 1120: 1118: 1112: 1109: 1108: 1103: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1083: 1080: 1076: 1073: 1072: 1067: 1064: 1060: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1042: 1037: 1034: 1033: 1028: 1025: 1021: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1012: 1009: 1000: 997: 996: 991: 988: 984: 981: 980: 979: 978: 975: 972: 968: 965: 964: 959: 956: 952: 949: 948: 947: 946: 943: 940: 939:wtfunkymonkey 936: 932: 929: 928: 921: 918: 914: 910: 906: 902: 901: 900: 899: 896: 893: 889: 886: 885: 884: 883: 880: 877: 873: 870: 869: 864: 861: 856: 853: 852: 851: 850: 847: 842: 838: 833: 828: 825: 824: 819: 816: 812: 808: 805: 804: 803: 802: 799: 795: 786: 778: 775: 774: 769: 766: 762: 759: 758: 757: 756: 753: 749: 744: 741: 740: 725: 722: 717: 716: 715: 712: 707: 702: 701: 700: 697: 693: 689: 688: 687: 684: 679: 675: 674: 673: 670: 665: 661: 657: 656: 655: 652: 647: 643: 642: 641: 638: 634: 630: 627: 622: 621: 620: 619: 616: 613: 608: 604: 601: 600: 594: 590: 587: 586: 585: 584: 581: 578: 574: 571: 569: 566: 561: 557: 554: 553: 548: 547: 546: 545: 542: 539: 535: 532: 531: 526: 523: 519: 516: 515: 514: 513: 510: 507: 503: 500: 499: 494: 491: 487: 482: 479: 478: 477: 476: 473: 470: 466: 462: 458: 455: 454: 449: 446: 442: 438: 435: 434: 433: 432: 428: 425: 421: 418: 417: 414: 411: 407: 404: 402: 399: 395: 391: 387: 383: 379: 375: 371: 366: 363: 361: 358: 354: 350: 346: 343: 341: 338: 334: 330: 327: 323: 320: 315: 312: 311: 310: 307: 303: 300: 298: 294: 291: 289: 286: 285:Sam Blacketer 282: 278: 276: 273: 269: 266: 264: 261: 256: 252: 249: 247: 244: 240: 237: 235: 231: 230: 225: 222: 218: 215: 214: 213: 212: 209: 206: 202: 198: 195: 194: 191: 188: 184: 181: 180: 179: 178: 173: 169: 164: 158: 155: 151: 150: 149: 146: 145: 142: 135: 131: 130: 129: 127: 123: 115: 111: 107: 103: 98: 94: 89: 85: 81: 77: 73: 72: 69: 66: 64: 63: 58: 53: 52: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 2700: 2697: 2688:Aditya Kabir 2683: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2667:non-argument 2666: 2662: 2636: 2622: 2604: 2586: 2572: 2547: 2546: 2534: 2495:over a dozen 2489: 2488: 2475: 2472: 2471: 2465:Aditya Kabir 2460: 2456: 2452: 2451: 2437: 2425: 2417:Aditya Kabir 2406: 2401: 2399: 2394: 2390: 2384: 2382: 2376: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2352: 2348: 2338: 2322: 2318: 2306: 2289: 2281:Aditya Kabir 2276: 2264: 2260: 2258: 2252: 2241: 2233: 2231: 2224: 2217: 2213: 2203: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2181: 2175: 2168: 2158: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2123: 2117: 2116: 2109: 2105: 2099: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2081: 2074: 2067: 2054: 2050: 2044: 2040: 2032: 2028: 2011: 2007: 1990: 1974: 1969: 1953: 1936: 1913: 1909: 1897: 1885: 1871: 1857: 1766: 1719: 1715: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1661: 1655: 1643: 1639: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1614: 1589:Captaintruth 1583: 1571: 1546: 1542: 1527: 1512: 1475: 1458: 1453: 1449: 1438: 1434: 1405: 1376: 1360: 1345: 1339: 1322: 1308: 1299: 1280: 1264: 1252: 1236: 1220: 1202: 1183: 1163: 1146: 1130: 1116: 1110: 1090: 1074: 1058: 1039: 1035: 1019: 998: 982: 966: 950: 930: 887: 871: 854: 826: 811:NON ARGUMENT 810: 806: 776: 760: 742: 691: 663: 659: 602: 593:NON ARGUMENT 592: 588: 572: 555: 533: 517: 501: 480: 456: 440: 436: 419: 410:TonyTheTiger 405: 398:TonyTheTiger 389: 385: 381: 377: 364: 349:NON ARGUMENT 348: 344: 332: 328: 313: 292: 280: 267: 250: 238: 233: 232: 217:NON ARGUMENT 216: 196: 182: 161: 147: 139: 126:Previous AfD 120: 49: 45: 43: 31: 28: 2613:TerriersFan 2453:Observation 2375:The other, 2246:Jimmy Wales 2161:User:Maelin 2130:neautrality 2035:. They are: 1862:Herostratus 1038:too much - 234:Weak delete 2679:neutrality 2675:notability 2577:David Hain 2486:missy1234 2413:Ad hominem 2361:disgusting 2144:or may be 2126:notability 2078:like that. 2071:arguments. 2062:Propaganda 1996:Eluchil404 1918:Ad hominem 1711:impossible 1697:and their 1667:notability 1654:, and the 1257:Charlam 00 1186:I suspect 1079:Kicking222 637:Charlam 00 459:Go to the 255:WP:PORNBIO 187:Wintermut3 2553:Dekkappai 2499:Boobpedia 2481:Missy1234 2442:Dekkappai 2339:I guess, 2273:Dekkappai 2094:see above 1946:Missy1234 1941:Missy1234 1927:Dekkappai 1759:Dekkappai 1724:Dekkappai 1662:had to be 1645:listcruft 1628:heathens? 1533:Hexvoodoo 1463:Dekkappai 1431:Listcruft 1398:listcruft 1389:Dekkappai 1117:†he Bread 429:Missy1234 424:Missy1234 243:Akihabara 239:Weak keep 154:Missy1234 134:Missy1234 122:Missy1234 2563:Fan-1967 2548:Comment: 2513:Contribs 2490:Comment: 2430:Otto4711 2395:research 2327:MartinDK 2299:MartinDK 2277:zealotry 2017:MartinDK 1979:MartinDK 1830:Fan-1967 1812:Fan-1967 1794:Fan-1967 1779:Contribs 1744:Fan-1967 1716:strength 1705:Exactly 1683:Playboy. 1603:Otto4711 1560:Contribs 1497:Contribs 1419:Contribs 1269:Fan-1967 1192:Fan-1967 971:TJ Spyke 917:FiggyBee 876:FiggyBee 841:Contribs 721:Otto4711 696:Otto4711 669:Otto4711 649:forms... 626:Otto4711 577:Moreschi 565:Otto4711 469:MartinDK 461:Playmate 319:MartinDK 272:MartinDK 172:Contribs 2653:ju66l3r 2649:WP:NPOV 2647:and/or 2639:: per 2623:comment 2595:Tarinth 2473:Comment 2438:Comment 2426:Comment 2365:trivial 2319:Comment 2307:Comment 2290:Comment 2059:Fascist 2008:Comment 1975:Comment 1937:Comment 1910:Comment 1858:Delete. 1801:Fixed! 1695:breasts 1671:Playboy 1615:Comment 1459:exactly 1323:comment 1281:comment 1203:comment 1184:Comment 1164:Comment 1156:GregorB 1131:comment 1046:crztalk 983:comment 911:, yes, 827:Delete. 807:Comment 761:comment 589:Comment 518:Comment 481:comment 457:Comment 437:Comment 406:Comment 345:Comment 314:Comment 260:BCoates 201:trivial 141:Valrith 93:protect 88:history 2641:WP:CLS 2637:Delete 2605:Delete 2504:Maelin 2476:Please 2457:delete 2400:Well, 2391:friend 2323:should 2265:Delete 2090:delete 2088:, not 1914:others 1860:Tits. 1770:Maelin 1679:useful 1551:Maelin 1543:plenty 1520:(talk) 1513:Delete 1488:Maelin 1410:Maelin 1346:Delete 1300:Delete 1265:Delete 1221:Delete 1147:Delete 1111:Delete 1075:Delete 1036:Delete 999:Delete 967:Delete 931:Delete 872:Delete 832:Maelin 777:Delete 743:Delete 660:at all 573:Delete 556:Delete 534:Delete 506:Edison 502:Delete 420:Delete 337:Koweja 329:Delete 302:Dismas 281:Delete 268:Delete 197:Delete 183:Delete 163:Maelin 97:delete 46:Delete 2645:WP:OR 2589:into 2587:Merge 2525:Vidor 2372:here. 2086:merge 2012:never 1821:Vidor 1803:Vidor 1734:Vidor 1640:those 1576:Vidor 1437:, or 1201:& 205:MER-C 114:views 106:watch 102:links 57:Help! 16:< 2609:WP:V 2573:Keep 2535:Keep 2509:Talk 2461:keep 2351:and 2271:and 2261:Keep 2242:vote 2132:and 2045:list 1970:KEEP 1898:Keep 1886:Keep 1775:Talk 1699:size 1687:once 1675:very 1584:Keep 1572:Keep 1556:Talk 1541:are 1528:Keep 1493:Talk 1476:This 1454:some 1415:Talk 1377:Keep 1340:Keep 1309:talk 1253:Keep 1004:Yank 837:Talk 785:acan 603:Keep 380:and 365:Keep 293:Keep 283:it. 251:Keep 168:Talk 110:logs 84:talk 80:edit 2677:or 2202:or 1902:qwm 1707:how 1624:us, 1620:why 1547:not 1482:or 1450:lot 1304:RJH 1041:crz 1007:sox 809:-- 781:coe 591:-- 347:-- 333:all 51:Guy 2673:, 2611:. 2511:| 2253:💕 2156:. 2140:, 2128:, 2096:). 1777:| 1657:Oz 1632:we 1558:| 1531:-- 1495:| 1417:| 1312:) 1149:. 907:; 839:| 796:— 793:lk 692:so 467:? 439:: 170:| 112:| 108:| 104:| 100:| 95:| 91:| 86:| 82:| 2515:) 2507:( 1781:) 1773:( 1647:. 1562:) 1554:( 1499:) 1491:( 1429:" 1421:) 1413:( 1306:( 843:) 835:( 791:a 789:t 783:l 305:| 174:) 166:( 116:) 78:( 59:) 55:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/List of Playboy Playmates with D-cup or larger breasts - Knowledge (XXG)

Index