The result was no consensus, even discounting new and possible single purpose accounts. -- Core des at 05:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
big-bust cup pov lists Spey Aqza 11:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Spey Aqza ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. — Dark Shikari talk/ contribs 12:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
NOTE: This is the second nomination the first can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers Valoem talk 02:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete even IF (note conditional) the nom was in bad faith, this is a good AfD. The list is entirely subjective (and thus has
neutrality and
original research problems. Also, lists of random physical features is entirely non-notable. --
Jayron32 06:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
" IF the nomination was in bad faith" (note the use of the conditional word IF. It means that we are discussing a possibility, not a certainty. I have no idea of the mindset or intent of the original nominator, NOR DO I CARE) such a defense is still an ad hominem defense; it is a deflection of the actual issue, and a means of avoiding having to enter the actual debate on THIS article. If you belive bad faith to have been exercised here, then go to Requests for Intervention and ask to have the user blocked. It has NO BEARING on the inherant notability of this article. MAKE ARGUEMENTS RELATING TO THE CONTENT OF THIS ARTICLE. I apologize for "shouting", but so far only one person, Charlam, has done so; though it would be nice to see any proof that his assertion is true... Are adult models routinely catagorized in this way and is such catagorization used (note the past tense: not useful, but used in the sense that others have used this information before it appeared on wikipedia) routinely in reliable sources. If anyone could make a credible arguement of the MERITS of this article, and could make some proof as to actual notability, I would change my vote. As yet, we have 1 unverified assertion that I would call a claim of notability. EVERYONE else has avoided discussing the merits of this article by deflecting the debate away from the contents of the article. They make arguements against other lists, or they make arguements against people involved in the debate. Neither kind of arguement brings anything to the discussion. -- Jayron32 22:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
"Keep" as it is information but the title should be changed.
The result was no consensus, even discounting new and possible single purpose accounts. -- Core des at 05:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC) reply
big-bust cup pov lists Spey Aqza 11:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: Spey Aqza ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. — Dark Shikari talk/ contribs 12:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC) reply
NOTE: This is the second nomination the first can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers Valoem talk 02:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC) reply
*Delete even IF (note conditional) the nom was in bad faith, this is a good AfD. The list is entirely subjective (and thus has
neutrality and
original research problems. Also, lists of random physical features is entirely non-notable. --
Jayron32 06:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
reply
" IF the nomination was in bad faith" (note the use of the conditional word IF. It means that we are discussing a possibility, not a certainty. I have no idea of the mindset or intent of the original nominator, NOR DO I CARE) such a defense is still an ad hominem defense; it is a deflection of the actual issue, and a means of avoiding having to enter the actual debate on THIS article. If you belive bad faith to have been exercised here, then go to Requests for Intervention and ask to have the user blocked. It has NO BEARING on the inherant notability of this article. MAKE ARGUEMENTS RELATING TO THE CONTENT OF THIS ARTICLE. I apologize for "shouting", but so far only one person, Charlam, has done so; though it would be nice to see any proof that his assertion is true... Are adult models routinely catagorized in this way and is such catagorization used (note the past tense: not useful, but used in the sense that others have used this information before it appeared on wikipedia) routinely in reliable sources. If anyone could make a credible arguement of the MERITS of this article, and could make some proof as to actual notability, I would change my vote. As yet, we have 1 unverified assertion that I would call a claim of notability. EVERYONE else has avoided discussing the merits of this article by deflecting the debate away from the contents of the article. They make arguements against other lists, or they make arguements against people involved in the debate. Neither kind of arguement brings anything to the discussion. -- Jayron32 22:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC) reply
"Keep" as it is information but the title should be changed.