2085:? If we were never able to make a good, sourced claim within the list, then it should get deleted. But just that it is difficult and in some cases impossible, does not mean it should get deleted? If we can agree on this, we can move on to discuss whether such objective crieria are possible (something which should probably have started on the talk page, but which is also relevant regarding deletion). PS: I believe it is possible, but do not see the article as holding much promise for ever becoming good reading (hence, "weak keep"). PPS: regarding bad faith on when what was done, then it would be great if we could "wipe the slate". But if there is enough cause not to, so be it (I won't judge on this, I did not follow this from the start).
1868:. Good lord, how many times does an article need to be nominated? As always, if there's an issue regarding citing, etc. that's a content issue to be handled within the article. The idea of the article is sound and it's worth noting the lack of redlinks, and given the anti-adult entertainment bias on Knowledge (XXG) which sees most porn articles go to AFD within days of creation (if not hours), that means most of those included have probably already passed the acid test, making them notable enough to have articles. There's even a length introductory section giving the list context, which is something most list articles lack. If accusations of bad faith are true, then this nomination should be closed.
2140:, etc.) have subjective elements to them. Is a company notable enough to have its own Knowledge (XXG) article? What does its net worth need to be to qualify? $ 100M? $ 1B? The choice is arbitrary, and different people will disagree on where the line should be drawn. By your reasoning, all articles on companies should be deleted because the dividing line is subjective, which clearly indicates that the argument is ridiculous. The mere subjectivity of some criteria is not a reason to delete an article; it is a reason to discuss the criteria and work out the borderline cases. You've never made any attempt to do this, and have just been disruptive. (Now you're being disruptive
2095:
performer. Determining what counts as that marketing is what leads to the subjectivity. There is agreement that a performer who appears in big-bust genre porn movies is marketed as a big-bust performer. This is a good objective criteria when a performer only appears in big-bust movies. However, when only a very small proportion of a performer's movies are in the big-bust genre, it is unclear whether this counts as being marketed as a big-bust star. Similar subjectiveness is involved when judging whether porn magazine models, Page 3 girls, strippers and actresses in non-porn big-bust movies are marketed as big-bust entertainers.
1019:
criteria which you did not seem interested in settling (would have been difficult even if you had, what with all of that ire). Instead you merely challenged every criteria and example offered (while continuing to revert any attempts to restore the entries you'd removed). Soon you unilaterally concluded that "it must always be subjective, therefore the page has to go," after having effectively sabotaged the discussion that might have reached an objective set of criteria. I see no good faith effort here. Anyway, it seems to me that the article was quite adequately "sorted out" before you got there.
520:? -- in response to all of this is a smokescreen (those deletions were quickly sustained). When attempts were made to ask you what you were up to, no justifications were given. This repeated with no answers ever forthcoming, only more leading, unending questions for those who were trying to keep the article from being defaced. The end result was this nomination for AfD, which is hard to see how is anything other than in bad faith. This is all readily visible in the history for the article and the talk page.
2590:. If he thought the page's criteria were ill-defined, he should have said so and engaged in a discussion. Instead, he unilaterally mass-removed names (and mass-AfD'ed articles in the category), and instigated an edit war. By the time any discussion started, he had angered every regular editor of this article. Still, I never reverted him and attempted to find good faith (which was not openly shown) and engage him in discussion. When it looked like the discussion was not leading to his
2521:
whom they fit with the argument "The current content dispute means we should delete the article". Even if Epbr has/is claiming this, his stronger argument still stands and it is this we should address. I personally believe that we can find a good compromise on what to include in this list, by basing it directly on a consensus definition of the "big bust"-genre. There are problems, sure, but I do not believe they invalidate the entire article.
435:- this nomination was made in response to an edit war. It should not be deleted as a result of this bad faith nomination, regardless of whether or not it qualifies for deletion. If there was a discussion going already about this, it should have been resolved at the article. Storming off to get the article deleted is not an appropriate response to a disagreement. --
377:
myself or taking administrative action against you for the POINT violation here, as we are engaged in the other dispute, but these are unrelated issues and problems. Anyone looking at the article talk page and history will clearly see your numerous edits, which prove that this nomination is POINT. I am amazed that you didn't think it would apply to you here.
1129:. 5th Nomination? Clearly someone has an agenda here to delete this page, and may be that person should know when to stop. I have no problem with a list of big bust models and performers....if they didn't exist, and there wasn't an interest in them, there we would not need a page. Clearly there is an interest in these performers, so the page is deserved.
2542:
issues of the article. Admittedly, while Epbr123 is not the only "guilty" one here, it's hard to stay clean when trying to clean up a mess of this magnitude. (To put it bluntly and with forthright honesty, this is quite possibly one of the most messiest situations I have ever seen on
Knowledge (XXG) since I began contributing.) Also, I should note that
1833:
although this discussion could conceivably end with us having no way to establish who to include or not without using original research almost all the time. Personally, I think the problem can be solved, and although I do not find much interesting encyclopedic knowledge in the article, I don't see the harm in it either.
2572:
I do appreciate your attempt to see good faith in Epbr123's actions and attitude, Lunds. However, because of the number of editors he has angered (I was beginning to think it was only me for a while), I believe it is Epbr123 who has brought this on himself. Even now, after inspiring outrage from many
2243:
Why should he read your comments? All they are - are inflammatory, badgering, rude, and monotonous. They are repetitive pieces of liberal garbage in which all it is - is you constantly passing off your comments as truths when they are not. We (by this, I mean the 20+ people) have seen through you and
2207:
As was obvious by your latest attempt to edit the article EPBR123... you cannot change what the requirements are for inclusion. It seems THAT is what you are truly mad about. You are mad because the list includes all models of DD+, not just ones who are in the big-bust genre like you would like. All
2032:
All of this is red-herring nonsense, meant to distract from the issue at hand. The subjectivity of the list is something to be resolved by discussing it on the list's talk page, not here. The fact that the list might be subjective is something that needs to be fixed. Find me a policy that says "if an
1188:
Like it or not, the porn industry is a significant part of the U.S. economy and the big-bust category is a significant and, dare I say, obvious part of it. Perhaps the page needs to be renamed and refactored to be a description of the sub-genre, with the list as merely a part. Inclusion on the list
503:
to establish more objective criteria. However, even if there was agreement on this, this decision itself would have been subjective, eg. what proportion of a porn stars films should be big-bust films for her to be considered a big-bust pornstar? All her films? Half her films? A dozen films? One film?
376:
I am reviewing all your AFD activity out of concern for your recent actions, but the issue here is very specifically that you have both started the edit war and are POINTily using it as an AFD excuse. This is a clear
Knowledge (XXG) policy violation. Admin rules keep me from either closing this AFD
2581:
which he AfD'ed and lost a few months ago. (At this time in his career he was AfDing up to a dozen articles a day in the category. Other editors and myself were offering counter-arguments, and generally winning. He has beat us now though, because of the ease with which an AfD can be started, and the
1623:
Stop making inflammatory comments. Characterizing votes as "keep despite it being original reserach"? How about we call your vote "delete despite the fact that it's obviously enecylopedic" or "delete because I'm too hard-headed to cooperate with others"??? Would that be fair or civil? NO. Stop being
1329:
No, the talk page is the place to discuss the criteria. But this particular point can be addressed by changing the text to "people who have performed in...", or perhaps "people have been featured in..." As I said previously, somewhere, I actually think the article should be changed to describing the
2772:
If you checked the dates, you will see my first AfDs weren't made after that deletion. The "DD or more" argument was merely an "others exist" argument; if it was acceptable in one, it should have been acceptable in both. "you can tell from the titles of the films the actress has appeared in whether
2556:
You are right about the switch in focus here, of course. On your other points about Epbr's action, I am pleeding "no contest". I am not going to investigate this, nor have I ever tried to - I will let others judge this part. I just pointed out something I have observed on this AfD, which has become
1967:
The "bizarre claims" stem from the fact that when discussion on the article's talk page stopped going your way, you stormed of and AfD'd the thing. This is not the first time you've done it, and there are a number of people who independently concluded that this and 11 other AfD's you started on the
1832:
Regarding bad faith etc. then I think we should ignore it and argue the case on its own merit. Epbr is of course allowed his viewpoint that the article should be deleted instead of being mended as he initially tried. Problem regarding who to include is not grounds for deletion, but for discussion -
1592:
I can only see nine keep !votes at all - 4 based on the validity of the article
Dekkappai, Rypcord, Deathlibrarian and Jeh, 3 based on procedural reasons, Cheeser1 (yours!), Xihr and Darkcraft. and 2 based on other reasoning, hisspaceresearch and Franchiseplayer. I take back the "virtuall all" part
994:
and tried to get people from there to chime in. Many of them are very level headed and should have been given the opportunity to address these issues. However, instead, contributors weren't. So the means you've employed do not justify the end result, which is why, in good conscience, I "voted" that
989:
it, provided that it meets the notability criteria, in which this article does. Since "big-bust" is a large niche (no pun intended) of pornography and, indeed, the very crux of breast fetishism in general, it is important that the list of big-bust models and performers remain here. What should have
688:
point (notice that I'm not the only one saying so). But feel free to storm off and refuse to respond to me. It's not like a bad-faith nominator would contribute a whole lot to an AfD, so i wouldn't mind having fewer comments from you to read. GWH has already explained things, including how you have
2010:
You fail to see the point. The article states any model or performer with a bust of DD+. It has no requirement of movie credits, films, books, magazines, pornos, etc. "Does Person A have a bust of DD+?" If yes, include them, if no, don't include them. Its that simple. The article itself states the
1018:
You, on the other hand, seem to have first edited this article just four days (not three years!) ago, and then you did it with a mass deletion of names without even mentioning the prospect first in the article's talk page. Thereby sparking an edit war, and much ire against you, and a discussion of
2602:
of the article/category. My suggestion, in the conversation in which he quickly broke off when it seemed to be going good, was going to be to look at outside sources for a good definition of the genre. Instead he seems to attempt to bait editors into emotional outbursts and defies them to come up
2541:
a mess, started by Epbr123's bad faith nomination: he edits the article for, essentially, four days -- instigating a possible edit war in the process -- and then unilaterally decides that the article cannot be salvaged and decides to throw it on AfD once he doesn't get "his way" in addressing the
2520:
Although I do recognize that these comments on every vote is not the "done thing", then I must say I do understand Epbr's frustration. He is arguing that the content dispute is unsolvable, and that nigh-all possible content is unsourcable. Few people respond to this, but attack the strawnman-Ebpr
870:
Epbr, your line of questioning is irrelevant and pedantic. This is not the place to consider specific instances of who is or is not included on this list. Such minutia have nothing to do with this AfD, and is distracting us from constructive discussion of this issue (unless of course, you're only
2411:
It's as notable as many of the other topics that are explored at great length and in great detail on
Knowledge (XXG), if not moreso. (Pokèmon, anyone?) I agree with Joe in that this article needs a lot of reworking, but it's certainly one that will be worth having once it's been improved. I also
2094:
I nominated the article for deletion because the discussion on the talk page, regarding the inclusion criteria, convinced me that the article will never be objective. The broad criteria, which there is consensus on, is that each person on the list has to be marketed as a big-bust genre models or
1309:
As has been pointed out to you before, this is not the place to discuss exact criteria or marginal cases. If you were genuinely interested in that discussion, I think you should have pursued it on the article's talk page, not aborted the discussion with an AfD. However, I'd say yes. It's easy to
919:
what the "big bust" genre niche is. There is a difference. This article, as it presently stands, is wholly worthy of deletion. (To be honest, there have been better articles with more substance that have been expunged.) Having said this, I cannot vote to delete the article as it stands presently
494:
In the hope of avoiding an AfD, I attempted to clean up the article and make the inclusion criteria more objective. However, the ensuing edit wars and unresolvable differences over what constitutes big-bust entertainment meant that an AfD was necessary. Even my removal of obviously non big-bust
1221:
That's one of the reasons I stopped working on the article and nominated it. It was possible to create a subjective criteria (ie. an appearance in one big-bust film), but I later realised that the decision on what the criteria should be was itself subjective, ie. why one film and not two?
1422:
Not summarily put up for AfD. Much of
Knowledge (XXG) runs on "consensus" -- what is "consensus" if not a mutual agreement on a subjective decision? After all if there were objective facts to begin with consensus would occur automatically (at least among all those who knew the facts).
2453:
You're the only person here who has said the criteria aren't too subjective. I trust you've read the thread and not just made your mind up from looking at the article. There are very subtle and complex problems with the article which casual observers will find difficult to notice.
1356:. He should have worked with other editors instead of AfD'ing it because he was impatient and unwilling to work towards compromise or accept a less-than-perfect set of criteria for inclusion (Knowledge (XXG) is not perfect, and never will be, let's try to move on from there). --
1231:
If you pursue that line of "reasoning" you'll find that a great many things turn out to be "subjective" after enough iterations. There's a big difference between a criterion, and the criteria for accepting a criterion. That the former is subjective does not mean the latter is.
48:
achievable with this AfD as there is an assertion that the nomination is in bad faith and making a point, the behaviour of the nominator during this afd tends emphasise this conclusion. That behaviour doesnt then permit others with a differing view to act in the same fashion.
809:
Her bio states she has a 34DD bust. Thus meeting the requirements of the article, thus she should be included, like she currently is. I fail to see your point. I also fail to see why you're being so aggressive against this article. The
Rypcord. 13:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1319:
This is the place to discuss the criteria and about half the people on the list are marginal. The article's lead says the list is for people who are known for performing in big-bust adult entertainment. Does one movie really make some known for being a big-bust performer?
2525:(although I would say it is the default opinion that sources can be found) and it is the point on which me and Epbr disagree - this does not make him an idiot to be ignored and I would not want anyone closing this AfD to take me serious if I did not address his claims!
623:). We're here to contribute (positively and non-disruptively) to Knowledge (XXG). You have used the AfD process disruptively, twice this week. We're trying to fix it, and the first step is to identify the problem: bad-faith AfD nominations. You seem to think that we're
1198:
What if a performer has made 300 movies and only one of them is included in the big-bust category? Would that be enough for them to be classed as a big-bust performer? Decisions like that make the article too subjective. There are many examples of these performers
2824:
Generally, to participate in this sort of discussion, one should tell us whether or not one believes we should keep the article or delete it, and the reasoning behind that recommendation. If you'd provide such a contribution, we'd be happy to consider it. Thanks.
1059:
criteria you were applying. But wait a minute. If you had objective criteria for your deletions there should have been no "borderline" cases; a performer would be on one side of the line or the other. If you were using subjective criteria, then pot, meet kettle.
104:
99:
94:
89:
83:
2061:
about the subjective nature of the criteria, you should have done it on your own, on the article's talk page. Not here, disruptively. In fact, such a discussion was going on. When people disagreed with you, you decided to AfD the article. That's 100% bad faith.
1536:. The fact that it includes the fake-breasted Daphne Rosen and similar others but doesn't include beautiful chicks like Aneta Buena, Alicia Loren, Sara Stone, Bea Flora etc is criminal in my book, but we don't decide what our sources choose to make notable...-
516:. You removed the obviously wrong entries as part of a mass deletion, removing many other non-obviously wrong entries, and they were reverted for the obvious reason that such mass deletions were not justified. Pointing to the legitimate deletions -- what,
353:
are the participants in the edit war Epbr123 is using as justification to delete this. One cannot both start an edit war and then nominate to delete based on there being an edit war. This is a clear classic POINT violation and the AFD should be closed.
1512:
again. Definition of "big" is still arbitrary, most of these have zero truly credible sources anyway, and this article is canonical breastcruft - we are not
Boobpedia, and simply having silicon injected does not actually make anyone worthy of anything.
1453:
does not say "if an article contains any original research, it must be immediately AfD'd," does it? No. It says to fix the article. You tried, and when the discussion after a couple days wasn't suiting you, you AfD'd the thing. That's not how it goes.
2071:
It belongs here because if it is subjective, it should be deleted. It's driving me mad having to repeat myself over-and-over. Yes, I am making a point: it should be deleted. No-one disagreed with my criteria proposed on the talk page, except myself.
2279:
trivial open ended list that belongs as a category. The only reason to use a list here would be to shove a bunch of fair use photos into 1 article which is against policy. Besides this is
Knowledge (XXG) not Boobpedia, and certainly not Pornopedia.
1505:
I love how Epbr123 has changed the requirements to be included from just being a DD+ model/performer; which the article states; to that of someone having performed or modeled for big-bust movies/magazines/etc. The
Rypcord. 21:35, 8 September 2007
2508:"Content not suitable for an encyclopedia", "Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources", "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed", and "Overcategorization".
52:
Knowledge (XXG) shouldnt be defining cirteria, inclusion in the list should be based solely on a third party reliable source that defines the performer as big busted providing that has occured it doesnt matter whether the person is 34DD or 12A.
2869:
this is one of the most sought after lists on
Knowledge (XXG), averaging tens of thousands of page views per month. Future deletion nominations should be discouraged if no new arguments can be presented for removing such a high-profile list.
2594:(namely: There is no big-bust genre, and the article should be deleted), he broke off discussion without comment, and AfD'ed the article. Throughout the AfD discussion, as he does with every AfD discussion, he seems to engage in a sort of POV
275:"How big is big" has nothing to do with it. There are videos, films, magazines, etc. that deal with the Big Bust genre. A performer or model either appears in them, or she doesn't. How funny does a comedian have to be to be called a comedian?
1679:, who says that their are two kinds of politicians in the U.S....Republicans and "cowards"! By the way, y'all realize that AfD is not a vote, right? Because, if it were, then either side could sockpuppet themselves into victory, right? --
602:
Your actions make it virtually impossible to assume good faith. You entered an discussion, the discussion turned bad, and rather than work towards consensus, you AfD'd the article because you couldn't have it your way. And this is one of
482:-- is wholly unnecessary here and smacks of him not getting his way, and thus wants to tear the whole thing down. See the history and talk pages of this article for more information. Color me not at all surprised with this development.
2546:
evaluates the actions of not only Epbr123 in this matter, but the actions of the editors involved as well, should it be deemed necessary. Given that there is no such thing as "pure innocence" and "pure guilt", this is to be expected.--
109:
1596:
The difference between 3/10 and 3/9 is 1/30. The difference in our count is irrelevant - at least two thirds of the "keeps" are not procedural, and while 1/3 may seem like a "high proportion" you have to realize that this user
77:
2750:
And here's another blast from the past, from "Category talk:Naturally busty porn stars", a category the nominator created, but was deleted, and following which, immediately and mysteriously, he began AfDing articles...
2677:
entertainment." Probably a good edit, I believe, but one which implies the existence and verifiability of the big-bust genre, which he now claims to be undefinable. However, he then used this edit to immediately begin
1290:
Agreeing to use criteria that are (for example) already used in the porn industry is not "original research." If a performer works in or is advertised in a "big bust" context the decision is clear and not at all OR.
2621:
You may very well be 100% right, Dekk. I am not going to pass judgement on this. My comments stand, but they may very well (already ) be proven completely moot by other behaviour and evidence than what I have seen.
2322:
Rypcord... Please avoid from following the example Epbr123 has, regrettably, set in this AfD. I strongly suggest that it is better to take the higher ground in this case, as the facts will attend to themselves. --
2467:
someone can disagree with you without need to be told that they are wrong, especially when you assume that they haven't read the article thoroughly enough. This person has made a perfectly valid point - this is a
2603:
with their own definition, which he then knocks down. This may be a good method for appearing to win arguments, but is not the Knowledge (XXG) method, and the majority of Wikipedians do not believe it should be.
657:
isn't exactly how you want it? Better delete it. Your point is, as far as I can tell, "if you won't do things my way, I'll just declare it 'subjective' and get it deleted, rather than continue participating in a
2757:"I think its reasonable to class a pornstar as busty if they have a bra cup size of DD or more. This criteria would be consistent with the criteria used in the other category, 'big-bust models and performers'."
2183:
So that's the criteria you're proposing? Each model on the list has to have a reliable source which specifically states the model is in the big-bust genre? Very few people on the list will have such a source.
1116:
Good faith or not, I really do not know. But I do know that Knowledge (XXG) is NOT a repository for indiscriminate information (or some such). And this looks just like such indiscriminate trivia to me.
1008:
You've had three years to sort this article out, and six previous warnings that the article is close to deletion. I too would like this article to become a legitimate list, but it's never going to happen.
2440:. Reasons for nomination appear to be content related; this is one of the most visible pages, period, that Knowledge (XXG) has to offer. I disagree that the criteria are too subjective, and alas almost
1701:
By some metrics, this is the fifth most popular article on all of Knowledge (XXG). I'm not sure how much of this is about how indefinable the criteria is, as opposed to just not wanting to deal with it.--
773:
Doesn't the list cite its requirements? If so, then its quite easy to judge who counts. -Do they meet requirements? Yes, add them. No? Don't add them. Simple. The Rypcord. 13:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
2803:
Until an administrator closes this debate, it's "open." However, the discussion appears to be done, regardless (nobody's commenting much anymore). I guess noadmin has gotten around to closing it yet. --
2001:
has B size breasts but one of her movies has boobs in the title, Boobs Of Hazzard 2. Does this make her a big-bust performer? And I didn't ask this question in bad-faith, whatever the hell that means.
1803:
it. See, nominating an article for deletion just because it has fixable problems would be like me suggesting that you be banned because of this farce of an AfD nomination that you've created here. --
188:
edit-warring as to inclusion on this list has come recently, and from the nominator. Attempts were made to assume that his mass-removals were in good faith, but it now appear to have been to make a
2578:
2654:- A little history. In reviewing for comment at the nominator's RfC, I came across several instances in which he directly contradicts the assertions under which he started this AfD. For example:
2537:: You have made some very good points here. However, I feel I must point out that this AfD has become about the contributor/nominator and not the article, and as such should be jettisoned. It
1310:
throw rocks at a "more than 10%" or "more than 10 films" or whatever number as "subjective," and perhaps it is, but "1 or more" (not 1% or more, ONE or more) seems to me to be very objective.
951:
No, a bad faith nomination is where a nomination is made despite the nominator knowing the article is valid. On the other hand, you want the article kept despite knowing it should be deleted.
184:. Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as a Big Bust genre, and yes, it's easy to determine if a model/performer's career is based on that genre. I've monitored this list for months and the
137:
132:
1816:. It's not merely a problem of it containing small sections of OR. The whole thing is OR. As shown by the examples I have already given, deciding who is a big-bust star is very subjective.
141:
2444:
of our guidelines for inclusion are subjective but that surely isn't a valid reason to delete a list which the community has demonstrated, time and time again, that they wish to retain.
2044:
The point is that the article will always be subjective. I was hoping for this AfD to be a discussion on whether that was indeed true; instead it's descended into this "bad-faith" crap.
1272:
Knowledge (XXG) has made up its own -- or made the subjective decision to adopt well-known -- criteria for many things, such as notability and reliable sources. How is this different?
124:
164:
2208:
anyone needs to do is check the history of the page and see your latest attempts at changing the page to see your true motivations for this deletion or changes to the article. The
2839:
While there may be no bright line identifying "big-bust" performers and models from others, that's a problem best worked out among editors on the Talk page, not through an AfD. —
1948:
Please ignore these bizarre bad faith claims. I have no idea what they refer to and they seem to be being used as a way to keep the article despite it being original research.
2416:
drive himself into a frenzy while trying to derail every comment. You made your points, dude. Let it go; The only place you're getting with all this fury is an early grave. --
2866:
is probably one of the most hotly contested issues I have witnessed on Knowledge (XXG), but no one is arguing that the genre exists. Furthermore, as I have said in the past
662:
of the issue." Of course, how am I supposed to know what point you're trying to make? This is the least effective and most disruptive way to do so. And let's not mention the
478:, and has been on a rampage of AfDs regarding the subjects of this and similar articles. If the article needs improving, then let's improve it. A deletion request -- the
981:
hope that the article can be made into something that has both a neutral point of view and does not contain original research from Knowledge (XXG)'s editors. I'm more for
221:
I have stated, in attempting to work with you, that it appeared subjective and that it needed to be worked out. Serves me right, assuming good faith when where is none.
538:
Why shouldn't it? Disruptive, spiteful, or otherwise bad-faith AfDs are completely inappropriate and should be summarily closed (without deletion) on those grounds. --
761:
Never had to before in other AF'ds, but ok: Its a noteworthy list with information for people who would like to access it. The Rypcord. 13:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1921:. There is clear evidence that this nomination was in bad faith. Some editors have chosen to believe this evidence. That does not make this a "bad faith comment." --
1212:
So in one sentence you propose a completely objective criterion, and in the next you say that criterion would be "too subjective"? Seems excessively argumentative.
2874:
2852:
2829:
2818:
2807:
2794:
2777:
2767:
2740:
2730:
2646:
2626:
2616:
2607:
2561:
2551:
2529:
2512:
2503:
2485:
2476:
2458:
2448:
2432:
2420:
2395:
2386:
2376:
2367:
2354:
2327:
2317:
2304:
2294:
2265:
2249:
2238:
2229:
2213:
2198:
2188:
2178:
2148:
2115:
2099:
2089:
2076:
2066:
2048:
2037:
2025:
2016:
2005:
1985:
1976:
1962:
1952:
1934:
1925:
1904:
1895:
1881:
1872:
1860:
1846:
1837:
1820:
1807:
1790:
1774:
1765:
1756:
1732:
1714:
1705:
1683:
1666:
1653:
1640:
1618:
1609:
1587:
1567:
1549:
1526:
1462:
1445:
1436:
1427:
1413:
1404:
1360:
1343:
1334:
1324:
1314:
1304:
1295:
1285:
1281:
The purpose of notability and reliable source guidelines are to prevent original research. Their existence can't be used as an excuse to allow original research.
1276:
1267:
1258:
1245:
1236:
1226:
1216:
1207:
1193:
1178:
1165:
1142:
1133:
1121:
1086:
1073:
1064:
1050:
1041:
1032:
1023:
1013:
1003:
964:
955:
946:
937:
928:
879:
817:
804:
768:
756:
706:
697:
679:
670:
644:
635:
597:
581:
565:
542:
533:
524:
508:
486:
454:
439:
427:
395:
381:
371:
358:
323:
310:
301:
288:
279:
267:
238:
225:
216:
196:
175:
60:
1710:
On the other hand, some people here may just want to keep the article based on the popularity of the subject rather than its merits as an encyclopedia entry.
2736:
She's obviously a big-bust model, but it's the many borderline cases which make the list subjective. I've never denied the existence of the big-bust genre.
1748:, especially the nominator, who looks to me like he's just arguing for the sake of arguing. Good God, this has got to be the longest AfD I've seen in which
171:
The inclusion criteria for this list is too subjective. Deciding which models and performers belong on the list has led to disagreements and edit-warring.
2763:"you can tell from the titles of the films the actress has appeared in whether or not they are in the big-bust genre. Epbr123 12:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)"
2574:
2543:
924:
a bad-faith nomination on the nominee's part, and no process on Knowledge (XXG) should be about placing the contributor before the contribution.) --
1254:
criteria must be subjective, on the grounds that the decision to accept a given set of criteria would be subjective. That's not a valid conclusion.
315:
These questions do NOT merit deletion. Bring it up on the talk page. The fact that you were in the middle of heated discussions and/or edit wars on
2107:
discussion on a similar topic may help give you more background info on the debate. Since that discussion, I've realised the criteria suggested by
1263:
It is certainly a reason to delete. If we make up our own criteria for what constitutes a big-bust porn star, this article is original research.
1028:
Adequately sorted out? Half the people on the list had never even been in a big-bust movie or mag; it was obvious they should have been removed.
619:
assume good faith. Your actions speak for themselves. You've also made an interesting point by assuming that we have not assumed good faith (see
1628:
places you've stepped over the line in the past week. Regardless of your editorial activities, I'm tired of asking you to follow policies like
1544:
1160:
1082:
set of objective criteria did not meet everyone's expectations is reason for you to WORK TO FORM CONSENSUS WITH OTHERS. Not AfD the article. --
995:
the seventh nomination be dismissed. I should also note that the fact that this article has survived repeated nominations does lend to the
1930:
It's a bad faith comment as there is no evidence for this being a bad faith nomination. He's just joining in with the rest of the sheep.
1601:
That's a gross violation of policy and this nomination was made in seriously bad faith. I would expect it to come up in this AfD, and it
2848:
474:
here; the nominator has engaged in multiple attempts to strip down the article to uselessness, got involved with at least two edit wars
306:
Can stripping count as big-bust entertainment? What is the difference between a big-bust genre stripper and a stripper with a big bust?
1250:
Actually I'm not addressing that point at all. You (according to your posts in the talk page) started the AfD because you decided that
2860:. This is a content dispute. The boundaries of the "big-bust" genre are no more or less defined than any other. What qualifies as
2773:
or not they are in the big-bust genre" - this is true, but as I have already said, what if she's only appeared in one big-bust film?
2599:
2299:
Since Epbr123 can reply to each KEEP I'll reply to each DELETE. #:There is no pictures on this page (have you viewed the page?). The
1563:. It appears that the Keep !votes virtually all are procedural ones, and don't discuss the validity of the actual article itself. -
284:
How is a big-bust film defined? How many big-bust films does an actress have to appear in to be considered a big-bust genre actress?
17:
675:
Why would I dislike Usenet? I'm not going to respond to you anymore. This discussion should be about the article not the nominator.
1662:
people of being abusive just because they disagree with you or cite policies and procedures that you don't feel like following. --
593:
violations are occuring here. This is all my fault for trying to improve the article first. I should have AfDed it straight away.
2021:
That isn't the criteria but if it was, a list of models and performers with DD breasts would be even more deserving of deletion.
1200:
990:
been done, instead of throwing this at articles for deletion for the 7th (not 5th) time, is brought this to the attention of the
650:
504:
After the discussions on the talk page reached a dead end, it was clear to me that it is impossible to make this list objective.
500:
209:
128:
391:
In my defense (not that it matters) I have not participated in the edit war, and made efforts to prevent it by talking it out.
2683:
2662:
1171:
1441:
Yes, yes... you've said this half a dozen times now, at least. So let's fix the criteria (and not give up after four days).
1409:
The fact that there is dispute over the inclusion criterion shows that this article is nothing more than original research.
663:
654:
120:
66:
2586:.) The points that you bring up, and that Epbr finally brought up, seem to me proof that this whole mess is nothing but a
2582:
time and research required to counter one. So now, by persisting in these mass-AfDs, he gets more and more scalps for his
2428:- fix the OR, fix the inclusion criteria, these are not reasons to delete. I havn't really seen any reason to delete. --
1675:"6 delete, 3 keep per procedural reasons, and 6 keep despite it being original research" Hahahahahaha. That reminds me of
1494:
1300:
As I stated before, what if only 1% of a performers movies are big-bust movies? Does this make them a big-bust performer?
863:
789:
742:
557:
reason for you to storm off and get the article deleted. Working towards resolution of these issues may take time, often
1479:
Exactly, Rome wasn't built in a day - and neither were many of these women. The Rypcord. 22:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
2889:
1353:
36:
2499:
Content dispute is not a reason for deletion. AfD nominations should mention at least one of the deletion criteria.
1352:. The fact that this conversation is not happening there has to do with the fact that Epbr refuses to acknowledge the
1339:
MOS would prohibit the combination of a long list and a main article. There's already an article on breast fetishism.
1913:
itself bad faith. Stop making inflammator nonsense responses every time someone disagrees with you. It is completely
1575:
as I count it, there are 7 votes to keep based on reasons related to the article, 3 related to this nomination being
702:
These are the exact same type of never-ending, leading questions we've had to deal with on the talk page by the way.
2760:
2104:
899:
I cannot, in good conscience, support this AFD, regardless of my beliefs regarding the article's clear and present
553:
The fact that you and others were unable to work towards a definitive answer on exactly how the list is defined is
420:
627:, when in fact we are drawing the only conclusion we can, given your disruptive misuse of the AfD process to make
1400:. The fact that there is dispute over the inclusion criterion does not warrant wholesale deletion of the page. --
1069:
I thought I was using objective criteria at the time, but the subsequest reversal of my removal proved me wrong.
378:
364:
355:
2412:
agree that this nomination for deletion was made in bad faith. In addition, I have been greatly amused watching
2081:
Can I propose the compromise that the discussion of subjectivity is relevant for whether this should be deleted
2888:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1614:
The !votes so far are 6 delete, 3 keep per procedural reasons, and 6 keep despite it being original research.
2844:
1482:
851:
777:
730:
1401:
529:
I'm sorry you see this as a bad faith nomination, but even if it were, that shouldn't affect the outcome.
2314:
2262:
2120:
This is, not surprisingly, a bogus argument, and seems to be a smokescreen. Subjectivity is involved in
1804:
1771:
1753:
1680:
2840:
2548:
2324:
1857:
1538:
1154:
1000:
934:
925:
2815:
2707:
2612:
Ah, those were the days, Dekkappai. I miss your "keep per multiple magazine appearances" arguments. ;)
2310:
1813:
1741:
764:
It's an unencyclopedic list as it's to difficult to judge who counts as a big-bust model or performer.
2351:
2033:
article is ever subjective, in any way, it must be deleted, not fixed." Hint: you won't find one. --
1998:
406:
1564:
1560:
1432:
If a list has subjective inclusion criteria, it is original research and therefore unencyclopedic.
1130:
261:
57:
2481:
You are not obligated to reply to every single one of my counter-arguments with personal attacks.
2591:
2587:
2058:
1914:
1646:
1633:
1629:
872:
690:
628:
342:
189:
933:
Also, I should note that this page should really be titled "7th nomination", and not "5th". --
2429:
2417:
2288:
1490:
1418:
Oh, please. The fact that there is dispute over the inclusion criteria show that it should be
859:
785:
738:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
2711:
2193:
You don't need to badger everyone who replies KEEP. No one badgers those who put DELETE. The
2133:
1745:
620:
1189:
can be determined by the performer's movies being listed in this category in catalogs, etc.
2234:
I have explained many times here why it is not as simple as that. Please read my comments.
1918:
1725:
1659:
1649:
has become such a common term of abuse, without anyone really understanding what it means.
624:
612:
590:
499:, were reverted. I then attempted to work with the more reasonable editors of this article
471:
257:
253:
2595:
2500:
2445:
2108:
1676:
797:
649:
That you don't like Usenet. That you don't want to cooperate in the discussion process at
2137:
1455:
1450:
991:
900:
659:
448:
2716:
she passes criteria 3 as she has been prolific or innovative within the big-bust genre."
2764:
2727:
2642:- cannot ever be sourced as written; needs to be destroyed and restarted from scratch.
2604:
2175:
1138:
The problem is that there is no objective definition of a big-bust model or performer.
578:
467:
392:
350:
298:
276:
235:
222:
205:
193:
54:
2174:. There are ample reliable sources available to justify the inclusion of this list.
2129:
2125:
234:, when you were pretending to be willing work on the article. Our discussion is over.
2826:
2804:
2473:
2309:
Temper, temper. This AfD is a farce, as I've stated earlier, but don't you become an
2226:
2063:
2034:
1973:
1922:
1892:
1869:
1663:
1637:
1606:
1584:
1583:
valid), and 1 request for summary closure (for the same bad-faith related reason). --
1521:
1515:
1459:
1357:
1118:
1083:
961:
876:
694:
667:
632:
574:
562:
539:
463:
436:
320:
2244:
have noticed WHY you Af'd this and many other articles. You are truly pathetic. The
1605:
a valid reason to either "keep" the article or summarily close the AfD (ie keep). --
2790:
2774:
2737:
2643:
2613:
2509:
2482:
2463:
You are not obligated to reply to every single vote. Please consider the fact that
2455:
2413:
2392:
2382:
2373:
2363:
2300:
2281:
2245:
2235:
2209:
2194:
2185:
2112:
2096:
2073:
2045:
2022:
2012:
2002:
1982:
1958:
1949:
1931:
1901:
1878:
1843:
1817:
1787:
1762:
1711:
1650:
1615:
1486:
1433:
1410:
1340:
1321:
1301:
1282:
1264:
1242:
1223:
1204:
1175:
1139:
1070:
1047:
1029:
1010:
952:
855:
814:
801:
781:
765:
753:
734:
676:
641:
594:
530:
505:
496:
368:
346:
307:
285:
213:
172:
158:
2598:, which may be fine in the classroom but is condescending and seems to imply his
2862:
2623:
2558:
2526:
2086:
1834:
1702:
1624:
argumentative and deliberately insulting. It's out of line, and this is one of
297:
to be discussed at the article, after you instigated the edit-war. No comment.
2691:
1856:
Nomination was made in bad faith. It's a genre in porn like action is in film
1729:
451:
903:
violations as painfully indicated by the lack of definitive criteria. We are
105:
Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers (6th nomination)
100:
Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers (5th nomination)
95:
Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers (4th nomination)
90:
Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers (3rd nomination)
84:
Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers (2nd nomination)
2145:
1997:
Here's another example of how difficult it will be to make this subjective.
943:
703:
521:
483:
413:
319:
make it absolutely clear that this AfD nomination was made in bad faith. --
2124:-- all of Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines as to appropriateness of content (
1442:
1424:
1331:
1311:
1292:
1273:
1255:
1233:
1213:
1190:
1061:
1038:
1020:
848:
Reply to my questions first. The Rypcord. 13:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1152:. Possibly works better as a category, but it's an interesting list...-
1909:
The fact that people noticed that your nomination was in bad faith is
653:. You're disrupting Knowledge (XXG) because you didn't get your way.
561:
of time. Deleting the article in the meanwhile is not appropriate. --
999:
of such an article, as there is interest in the subject at hand. --
960:
There's more than one way a nomination can be made in bad faith. --
2083:
if the question is whether the article will ever be objective/NPOV
2882:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
2346:
1877:
This has nothing to do with citing! Please read the discussion.
1593:
of my statement, but it still remains a fairly high proportion.
1241:
You're the only one here who thinks the criteria are objective.
942:
Hmm. Isn't this really the sixth? (I see a duplicate second.)
110:
Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers 2nd
2011:
requirements for inclusion. Whats so subjective about that?The
1981:
At which point of the discussion did things stop going my way?
1350:
on the article's talk page before it was nominated for deletion
2583:
615:
tells us that we should assume good faith, not that we should
2225:) genre and the list is verifiable by reliable sources. --
78:
Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers
1348:
You do realize that all of this should have been discussed
1037:
Ah... so there IS an objective criteria you were applying!
1458:
isn't carte blanche to delete anything you think is OR. --
293:
These are bad faith, leading questions, as they were only
2372:
I can't see any discussions on this thread. What a mess.
1599:
AfD'd the article because consensus wasn't going his way.
1330:
genre, and include the list as part of a larger article.
339:
Comment, recommend immediate bad-faith nomination closure
1786:
No-one has yet denied the article is original research.
977:
you're going about doing it. To be honest, I still have
363:
This is a POINT comment based on a disagreement between
252:"big bust" anyway? Far too subjective, and bordering on
2871:
2867:
2756:
2715:
2695:
2687:
2658:
813:
Why is someone with a D bust not a big-bust performer?
154:
150:
146:
1842:
I respect your honest, well thought through opinion.
2055:
such a discussion belongs on the article's talk page
1891:as bad faith nomination as stated by Joe Beaudoin.
2472:
dispute, which is not an AfD-qualifying problem. --
1740:as bad faith nomination and make sure every single
1055:Perhaps that is true, but we still don't know what
447:Who are we to decide what's a "big-bust"? This is
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2362:: I believe its time to end this discussion. The
2892:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1046:There were still far too many borderline cases.
973:you're trying to do that's the issue here, it's
684:If this was nominated in bad-faith, that's a
8:
2577:, he continues to AfD in the category, even
727:The Rypcord. 13:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
625:assuming bad faith at random or out of spite
651:Talk:List of big-bust models and performers
212:that the inclusion criteria is subjective.
210:Talk:List of big-bust models and performers
2111:are too subjective for the above reasons.
1645:I find it amusing how directing people to
800:be included? If not, why not? If so, why?
689:been disruptive and how you are making a
2684:Category:Big-bust models and performers
2663:Category:Big-bust models and performers
1795:So what if it does? That's a reason to
1172:Category:Big-bust models and performers
75:
2573:editors, and while in the midst of an
655:List of big-bust models and performers
121:List of big-bust models and performers
67:List of big-bust models and performers
2722:contradiction of his statements here.
2144:by adding a bunch of bogus entries.)
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
2669:known for modeling or performing in
913:what a "big bust" is, but we are to
2391:Agreed. It's not up to us, though.
607:separate abuses of the AfD process
73:
2706:On August 9 he opened a succesful
24:
1658:I find it amusing how often you
1420:discussed more on the talk page.
571:Keep due to bad faith nomination
433:Keep due to bad faith nomination
2686:from hundreds of articles like
2257:garbage? I don't get what's so
2875:23:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
2853:01:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
2830:19:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
2819:19:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
2808:18:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
2795:17:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
2789:- Has this concluded yet? The
2778:22:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
2768:21:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
2741:21:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
2731:21:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
2647:00:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
2627:20:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
2617:19:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
2608:18:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
2562:20:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
2552:17:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
2530:08:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
2513:08:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
2504:08:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
2486:08:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
2477:01:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
2459:23:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
2449:22:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
2433:20:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
2421:19:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
2396:18:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
2387:17:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
2381:Then it should be closed. The
2377:16:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
2368:15:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
2355:02:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
2328:02:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
2318:01:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
2305:00:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
2295:00:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
2266:01:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
2250:00:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
1986:00:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
1972:were all made in bad-faith. --
1957:Wow, thats just pathetic. The
1761:Thanks for that contribution.
495:entertainment models, such as
405:No argument to keep it except
230:Also, these musings were made
61:10:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
1:
2665:so: "This is a list of women
2239:23:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
2230:23:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
2214:22:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
2199:21:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
2189:20:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
2179:19:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
2149:22:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
2116:23:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
2100:22:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
2090:21:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
2077:19:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
2067:19:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
2049:19:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
2038:18:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
2026:19:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
2017:18:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
2006:18:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1977:18:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1963:18:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1953:17:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1935:20:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1926:17:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1905:16:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1896:16:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1882:16:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1873:16:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1861:15:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1847:15:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1838:15:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1821:14:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1808:14:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1791:14:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1775:14:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1766:13:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1757:13:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1733:10:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1715:09:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1706:09:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1684:13:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1667:13:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1654:10:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1641:10:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1619:09:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1610:08:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1588:07:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1568:07:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1550:23:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1527:22:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1463:08:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1446:20:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1437:20:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1428:19:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1414:19:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1405:19:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1361:10:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1344:22:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1335:20:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1325:20:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1315:20:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1305:20:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1296:19:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1286:19:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1277:19:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1268:19:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1259:19:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1246:19:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1237:17:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1227:17:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1217:17:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1208:16:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1194:16:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1179:16:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1170:There is a category as well:
1166:16:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1143:16:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1134:16:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1122:15:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1087:10:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
1074:21:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1065:20:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1051:20:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1042:19:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1033:18:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1024:18:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1014:17:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1004:17:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
965:16:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
956:15:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
947:22:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
938:15:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
929:15:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
880:14:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
871:trying to prove an unrelated
818:13:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
805:13:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
769:13:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
757:13:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
707:22:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
698:12:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
680:12:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
671:12:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
645:12:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
636:12:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
598:12:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
582:12:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
566:10:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
543:11:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
534:11:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
525:10:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
509:09:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
487:07:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
455:05:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
440:03:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
428:02:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
396:00:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
382:01:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
372:00:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
359:00:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
324:08:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
311:01:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
302:00:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
289:00:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
280:00:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
268:00:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
239:00:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
226:00:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
217:00:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
197:00:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
176:00:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
2714:with a statement including,
2221:- It's a very popular (read
693:, thoroughly (see above). --
897:Close bad faith nomination.
470:. It is very difficult to
367:and myself on another AfD.
2909:
2579:articles such as this one
752:You need a valid reason.
2885:Please do not modify it.
2057:. If you were trying to
32:Please do not modify it.
2726:For what it's worth...
2523:But this is not a given
1744:here gets a lesson in
208:has stated himself at
72:AfDs for this article:
2345:EXCEPTIONALLY STRONG
1946:Note to closing admin
1750:nothing has been said
985:the article than for
660:good faith discussion
1579:in bad faith (which
796:For example, should
476:in this very article
466:and, I have to say,
379:Georgewilliamherbert
365:Georgewilliamherbert
356:Georgewilliamherbert
1900:Bad faith comment.
1561:User:TenPoundHammer
2753:for the first time
2557:quite messy, yes.
2544:the RfC in process
1770:You're welcome. --
1636:, and so forth. --
1078:And the fact that
969:Epbr123, It's not
686:perfectly relevant
341:- This is a clear
317:exactly this point
2761:deletion argument
2661:he re-worded the
2596:Socratic dialogue
1525:
1498:
1485:comment added by
901:original research
867:
854:comment added by
793:
780:comment added by
746:
733:comment added by
472:assume good faith
424:
416:
2900:
2887:
2657:On August 7: In
2568:(edit conflict)
2549:Joe Beaudoin Jr.
2325:Joe Beaudoin Jr.
2293:
2286:
1746:not being a dick
1519:
1480:
1354:deletion process
1001:Joe Beaudoin Jr.
935:Joe Beaudoin Jr.
926:Joe Beaudoin Jr.
849:
775:
728:
664:personal attacks
426:
418:
412:
264:
263:Ten Pound Hammer
162:
144:
34:
2908:
2907:
2903:
2902:
2901:
2899:
2898:
2897:
2896:
2890:deletion review
2883:
2708:deletion review
2675:genre of erotic
2291:
2282:
2109:User:AnonEMouse
2053:That's because
1812:Welcome to the
1677:Stephen Colbert
1559:as per nom and
1548:
1545:r e s e a r c h
1402:FranchisePlayer
1164:
1161:r e s e a r c h
798:Stacy Valentine
423:
410:
262:
135:
119:
116:
114:
86:
70:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2906:
2904:
2895:
2894:
2878:
2877:
2855:
2833:
2832:
2813:
2812:
2811:
2810:
2798:
2797:
2783:
2782:
2781:
2780:
2744:
2743:
2724:
2723:
2700:
2699:
2655:
2649:
2637:
2636:
2635:
2634:
2633:
2632:
2631:
2630:
2629:
2619:
2566:
2565:
2564:
2494:
2493:
2492:
2491:
2490:
2489:
2488:
2435:
2423:
2405:
2404:
2403:
2402:
2401:
2400:
2399:
2398:
2357:
2335:
2334:
2333:
2332:
2331:
2330:
2320:
2315:71.191.166.249
2311:angry mastodon
2274:
2273:
2272:
2271:
2270:
2269:
2268:
2263:71.191.166.249
2216:
2205:
2204:
2203:
2202:
2201:
2169:
2168:
2167:
2166:
2165:
2164:
2163:
2162:
2161:
2160:
2159:
2158:
2157:
2156:
2155:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2030:
2029:
2028:
1999:Jezebelle Bond
1992:
1991:
1990:
1989:
1988:
1965:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1863:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1827:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1805:71.191.166.249
1781:
1780:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1772:71.191.166.249
1754:71.191.166.249
1742:angry mastodon
1735:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1681:71.191.166.249
1673:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1660:falsely accuse
1553:
1552:
1542:
1530:
1529:
1507:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1448:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1158:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1131:Deathlibrarian
1124:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
967:
949:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
868:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
584:
568:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
489:
468:User:Dekkappai
457:
442:
430:
419:
400:
399:
398:
386:
385:
384:
351:User:Dekkappai
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
243:
242:
241:
228:
199:
169:
168:
115:
113:
112:
107:
102:
97:
92:
87:
82:
80:
74:
71:
69:
64:
44:The result was
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2905:
2893:
2891:
2886:
2880:
2879:
2876:
2873:
2868:
2865:
2864:
2859:
2856:
2854:
2850:
2846:
2842:
2841:Malik Shabazz
2838:
2835:
2834:
2831:
2828:
2823:
2822:
2821:
2820:
2817:
2809:
2806:
2802:
2801:
2800:
2799:
2796:
2792:
2788:
2785:
2784:
2779:
2776:
2771:
2770:
2769:
2766:
2762:
2758:
2754:
2749:
2746:
2745:
2742:
2739:
2735:
2734:
2733:
2732:
2729:
2721:
2717:
2713:
2709:
2705:
2704:
2703:
2697:
2696:Cynthia Myers
2693:
2689:
2685:
2681:
2676:
2672:
2668:
2664:
2660:
2656:
2653:
2650:
2648:
2645:
2641:
2638:
2628:
2625:
2620:
2618:
2615:
2611:
2610:
2609:
2606:
2601:
2597:
2593:
2589:
2585:
2580:
2576:
2571:
2567:
2563:
2560:
2555:
2554:
2553:
2550:
2545:
2540:
2536:
2535:Reply/Comment
2533:
2532:
2531:
2528:
2524:
2519:
2516:
2515:
2514:
2511:
2507:
2506:
2505:
2502:
2498:
2495:
2487:
2484:
2480:
2479:
2478:
2475:
2471:
2466:
2462:
2461:
2460:
2457:
2452:
2451:
2450:
2447:
2443:
2439:
2436:
2434:
2431:
2427:
2424:
2422:
2419:
2415:
2410:
2407:
2406:
2397:
2394:
2390:
2389:
2388:
2384:
2380:
2379:
2378:
2375:
2371:
2370:
2369:
2365:
2361:
2358:
2356:
2353:
2349:
2348:
2342:
2341:
2337:
2336:
2329:
2326:
2321:
2319:
2316:
2312:
2308:
2307:
2306:
2302:
2298:
2297:
2296:
2290:
2287:
2285:
2278:
2275:
2267:
2264:
2260:
2256:
2253:
2252:
2251:
2247:
2242:
2241:
2240:
2237:
2233:
2232:
2231:
2228:
2224:
2220:
2217:
2215:
2211:
2206:
2200:
2196:
2192:
2191:
2190:
2187:
2182:
2181:
2180:
2177:
2173:
2170:
2150:
2147:
2143:
2139:
2135:
2131:
2127:
2123:
2119:
2118:
2117:
2114:
2110:
2106:
2103:
2102:
2101:
2098:
2093:
2092:
2091:
2088:
2084:
2080:
2079:
2078:
2075:
2070:
2069:
2068:
2065:
2060:
2056:
2052:
2051:
2050:
2047:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2040:
2039:
2036:
2031:
2027:
2024:
2020:
2019:
2018:
2014:
2009:
2008:
2007:
2004:
2000:
1996:
1993:
1987:
1984:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1975:
1971:
1966:
1964:
1960:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1951:
1947:
1944:
1936:
1933:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1924:
1920:
1917:and violates
1916:
1912:
1908:
1907:
1906:
1903:
1899:
1898:
1897:
1894:
1890:
1887:
1883:
1880:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1871:
1867:
1864:
1862:
1859:
1858:81.153.49.180
1855:
1852:
1848:
1845:
1841:
1840:
1839:
1836:
1831:
1828:
1822:
1819:
1815:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1789:
1785:
1782:
1776:
1773:
1769:
1768:
1767:
1764:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1739:
1736:
1734:
1731:
1727:
1724:Per nom, and
1723:
1720:
1716:
1713:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1704:
1700:
1697:
1685:
1682:
1678:
1674:
1668:
1665:
1661:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1617:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1595:
1594:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1586:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1555:
1554:
1551:
1547:
1546:
1541:
1540:
1535:
1532:
1531:
1528:
1523:
1518:
1517:
1511:
1508:
1504:
1503:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1484:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1464:
1461:
1457:
1452:
1449:
1447:
1444:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1435:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1426:
1421:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1412:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1403:
1399:
1396:
1362:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1342:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1333:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1323:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1313:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1303:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1294:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1284:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1275:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1266:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1244:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1235:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1225:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1215:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1206:
1202:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1192:
1187:
1184:
1180:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1163:
1162:
1157:
1156:
1151:
1148:
1144:
1141:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1132:
1128:
1125:
1123:
1120:
1115:
1112:
1088:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1072:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1063:
1058:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1049:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1040:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1031:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1022:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1012:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1002:
998:
993:
988:
984:
980:
976:
972:
968:
966:
963:
959:
958:
957:
954:
950:
948:
945:
941:
940:
939:
936:
932:
931:
930:
927:
923:
920:because this
918:
917:
912:
911:
906:
902:
898:
895:
894:
881:
878:
874:
869:
865:
861:
857:
853:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
819:
816:
812:
811:
808:
807:
806:
803:
799:
795:
794:
791:
787:
783:
779:
772:
771:
770:
767:
763:
762:
760:
759:
758:
755:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
744:
740:
736:
732:
726:
708:
705:
701:
700:
699:
696:
692:
687:
683:
682:
681:
678:
674:
673:
672:
669:
665:
661:
656:
652:
648:
647:
646:
643:
640:What points?
639:
638:
637:
634:
630:
626:
622:
618:
614:
610:
606:
601:
600:
599:
596:
592:
588:
585:
583:
580:
576:
575:User:Cheeser1
573:I agree with
572:
569:
567:
564:
560:
556:
552:
544:
541:
537:
536:
535:
532:
528:
527:
526:
523:
519:
515:
512:
511:
510:
507:
502:
498:
493:
490:
488:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
464:User:Cheeser1
462:. Agree with
461:
458:
456:
453:
450:
446:
443:
441:
438:
434:
431:
429:
422:
415:
408:
404:
403:Strong delete
401:
397:
394:
390:
387:
383:
380:
375:
374:
373:
370:
366:
362:
361:
360:
357:
352:
348:
345:nomination -
344:
340:
337:
325:
322:
318:
314:
313:
312:
309:
305:
304:
303:
300:
296:
292:
291:
290:
287:
283:
282:
281:
278:
274:
271:
270:
269:
265:
259:
255:
251:
247:
244:
240:
237:
233:
229:
227:
224:
220:
219:
218:
215:
211:
207:
203:
200:
198:
195:
191:
187:
183:
180:
179:
178:
177:
174:
166:
160:
156:
152:
148:
143:
139:
134:
130:
126:
122:
118:
117:
111:
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
96:
93:
91:
88:
85:
81:
79:
76:
68:
65:
63:
62:
59:
56:
50:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2884:
2881:
2861:
2857:
2836:
2816:99.242.169.7
2814:
2786:
2752:
2747:
2725:
2719:
2718:. Again, in
2701:
2682:-removal of
2679:
2674:
2670:
2666:
2651:
2639:
2569:
2538:
2534:
2522:
2517:
2496:
2469:
2464:
2441:
2437:
2430:Rocksanddirt
2425:
2409:Strong Keep.
2408:
2359:
2344:
2339:
2338:
2283:
2276:
2261:about it. --
2258:
2254:
2222:
2218:
2171:
2141:
2121:
2082:
2059:make a point
2054:
1994:
1969:
1945:
1910:
1888:
1865:
1853:
1829:
1800:
1796:
1783:
1749:
1738:Speedy close
1737:
1721:
1698:
1625:
1602:
1598:
1580:
1576:
1572:
1556:
1543:
1537:
1533:
1514:
1509:
1419:
1397:
1349:
1251:
1185:
1159:
1153:
1149:
1126:
1113:
1079:
1056:
996:
992:porn project
986:
982:
978:
974:
970:
921:
915:
914:
909:
908:
904:
896:
724:
723:
685:
616:
608:
604:
589:Quite a few
586:
570:
558:
554:
517:
513:
497:Keyshia Cole
491:
479:
475:
459:
444:
432:
402:
388:
347:User:Epbr123
338:
316:
294:
272:
254:WP:NOT#IINFO
249:
245:
231:
201:
185:
181:
170:
51:
46:No consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
2872:Yamaguchi先生
2863:Emo (music)
2688:Candye Kane
2584:trophy wall
2340:STRONG KEEP
1854:Strong keep
1799:it, not to
1481:—Preceding
1186:Strong keep
1127:Strong keep
850:—Preceding
776:—Preceding
743:LBNcontribs
729:—Preceding
182:Strong keep
2692:Russ Meyer
2501:Jackaranga
2465:just maybe
2446:Burntsauce
2352:CBenoit128
2122:everything
1726:WP:NOT#DIR
1573:Correction
407:WP:ILIKEIT
258:WP:NOT#DIR
248:, how big
2765:Dekkappai
2728:Dekkappai
2673:big-bust
2667:primarily
2659:this edit
2605:Dekkappai
2600:ownership
2313:, too. --
2176:RFerreira
1830:Weak keep
1150:Weak keep
1057:objective
983:reworking
609:this week
579:Darkcraft
577:entirely.
480:fifth one
393:Dekkappai
299:Dekkappai
295:beginning
277:Dekkappai
236:Dekkappai
223:Dekkappai
206:Dekkappai
194:Dekkappai
2849:contribs
2827:Cheeser1
2805:Cheeser1
2694:actress
2592:WP:POINT
2588:WP:POINT
2474:Cheeser1
2227:Oakshade
2064:Cheeser1
2035:Cheeser1
1974:Cheeser1
1970:same day
1923:Cheeser1
1893:Tabercil
1870:23skidoo
1664:Cheeser1
1647:WP:POINT
1638:Cheeser1
1634:WP:POINT
1630:WP:CIVIL
1607:Cheeser1
1585:Cheeser1
1495:contribs
1483:unsigned
1460:Cheeser1
1358:Cheeser1
1119:Marcus22
1084:Cheeser1
987:deleting
962:Cheeser1
907:here to
877:Cheeser1
873:WP:POINT
864:contribs
852:unsigned
790:contribs
778:unsigned
731:unsigned
695:Cheeser1
691:WP:POINT
668:Cheeser1
633:Cheeser1
563:Cheeser1
540:Cheeser1
437:Cheeser1
343:WP:POINT
321:Cheeser1
190:WP:POINT
165:View log
2791:Rypcord
2787:Comment
2775:Epbr123
2759:At the
2748:Comment
2738:Epbr123
2712:Sharday
2652:Comment
2644:Valrith
2614:Epbr123
2570:Comment
2518:Comment
2510:Epbr123
2483:Epbr123
2470:content
2456:Epbr123
2418:Slander
2393:Epbr123
2383:Rypcord
2374:Epbr123
2364:Rypcord
2360:Comment
2301:Rypcord
2284:ALKIVAR
2259:liberal
2255:Liberal
2246:Rypcord
2236:Epbr123
2223:notable
2210:Rypcord
2195:Rypcord
2186:Epbr123
2134:WP:NPOV
2113:Epbr123
2097:Epbr123
2074:Epbr123
2046:Epbr123
2023:Epbr123
2013:Rypcord
2003:Epbr123
1995:Comment
1983:Epbr123
1959:Rypcord
1950:Epbr123
1932:Epbr123
1915:uncivil
1902:Epbr123
1879:Epbr123
1844:Epbr123
1818:Epbr123
1788:Epbr123
1784:Comment
1763:Epbr123
1712:Epbr123
1699:Comment
1651:Epbr123
1616:Epbr123
1577:clearly
1534:Comment
1487:Rypcord
1434:Epbr123
1411:Epbr123
1341:Epbr123
1322:Epbr123
1302:Epbr123
1283:Epbr123
1265:Epbr123
1243:Epbr123
1224:Epbr123
1205:Epbr123
1176:Epbr123
1140:Epbr123
1071:Epbr123
1048:Epbr123
1030:Epbr123
1011:Epbr123
953:Epbr123
856:Rypcord
815:Epbr123
802:Epbr123
782:Rypcord
766:Epbr123
754:Epbr123
735:Rypcord
677:Epbr123
642:Epbr123
621:WP:AAGF
617:blindly
595:Epbr123
587:Comment
531:Epbr123
514:Comment
506:Epbr123
492:Comment
389:Comment
369:Epbr123
308:Epbr123
286:Epbr123
273:Comment
214:Epbr123
202:Comment
173:Epbr123
138:protect
133:history
2720:direct
2702:Also:
2690:, and
2640:Delete
2624:Lundse
2559:Lundse
2527:Lundse
2277:Delete
2087:Lundse
1919:WP:AGF
1835:Lundse
1801:delete
1722:Delete
1703:BigCow
1557:Delete
1510:Delete
1114:Delete
916:report
910:decide
629:points
613:WP:AGF
591:WP:AGF
445:Delete
246:Delete
142:delete
2142:again
2138:WP:RS
1752:!! --
1730:Ceoil
1539:h i s
1522:Help!
1506:(UTC)
1456:WP:OR
1451:WP:OR
1155:h i s
875:). --
452:Corpx
449:WP:OR
232:today
159:views
151:watch
147:links
58:garra
16:<
2858:Keep
2845:Talk
2837:Keep
2755:...
2680:mass
2497:Keep
2438:Keep
2426:keep
2414:Epbr
2347:KEEP
2219:Keep
2172:Keep
2146:Xihr
2130:WP:V
2126:WP:N
2105:This
1889:Keep
1866:Keep
1814:herd
1626:many
1565:fchd
1491:talk
1398:Keep
1201:here
1080:your
997:need
979:some
971:what
944:Xihr
860:talk
786:talk
739:talk
725:Keep
704:Xihr
666:. --
631:. --
559:lots
522:Xihr
501:here
484:Xihr
460:Keep
421:cont
414:twsx
409:. ~
349:and
256:and
186:only
155:logs
129:talk
125:edit
55:Gnan
2710:of
2671:the
2575:RfC
2442:ALL
1911:not
1797:fix
1516:Guy
1443:Jeh
1425:Jeh
1332:Jeh
1312:Jeh
1293:Jeh
1274:Jeh
1256:Jeh
1252:any
1234:Jeh
1214:Jeh
1191:Jeh
1062:Jeh
1039:Jeh
1021:Jeh
975:how
905:not
605:two
555:not
518:two
266:•
163:– (
2851:)
2847:|
2825:--
2793:.
2539:is
2385:.
2366:.
2350:.
2343:.
2303:.
2248:.
2212:.
2197:.
2136:,
2132:,
2128:,
2062:--
2015:.
1961:.
1728:.
1632:,
1603:is
1581:is
1497:)
1493:•
1203:.
1174:.
922:is
866:)
862:•
792:)
788:•
745:)
741:•
611:.
417:|
411:|
260:.
250:is
204:.
192:.
157:|
153:|
149:|
145:|
140:|
136:|
131:|
127:|
2843:(
2698:.
2292:☢
2289:™
1524:)
1520:(
1489:(
858:(
784:(
737:(
425:|
167:)
161:)
123:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.