Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Busty Heart


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 02:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Busty Heart

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Essentially a promo spot that appears to be largely maintained by the subject herself, in violation of WP:COI. There are obvious notability issues as well. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/ talk to me!  12:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete- Subject lacks significant notability. Top search results include her crushing cans and watermelons with her breasts... Meatsgains (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think we're obligated to keep articles on people who get significant coverage, but, at the same time, I don't think we should ignore the coverage.  Sykes has gotten a bit of coverage as one of the Celtics' most famous fans:  from Boston,  from the Olean Times Herald, and  from The New York Times.  Each of these sources indicates that she got further coverage, including on television and radio, which are not easily found online.  I understand the argument that the article is promotional, that it was written by an editor with a COI, and that her main claim to fame is kind of questionable.  However, there are better sources available than "check out this funny clip of a woman who has big breasts", and the promotional aspects can be fixed.  There's also some stuff on HighBeam Research, such as  and .  Not the most compelling coverage, but it shows that there's other stuff to write about, too, such as her entrepreneurship and the assault lawsuit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The coverage is at best one event notability. Nothing lasting or justifying having an encyclopedia article on this person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Besides the fact that notability is not temporary, I linked news articles from 1986, 1998, 1999, 2008, and 2012 that provide coverage of a variety of topics, including entrepreneurship, an assault case, and her legacy in sports fandom. How is that "not lasting" or "one event"?  I'm not sure what event this is even referring to.  BLP1E might come into play if she got coverage for a funny video on the internet and nothing else, but that's clearly not the case here.  Like I said above, people are ignoring available sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  SST  flyer  12:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 22:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep more or less per NRP. The New England equivalent of Morganna, the Kissing Bandit, with more than enough news coverage in the 1980s, which establishes notability even though it is now difficult to trace online. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.  (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't seem to meet the minimum criteria for "enduring notability."  Having large breasts and feeling "self-conscious" about them is not encyclopedia worthy for an otherwise unremarkable person.  And the fact that the Celtics won in 1986 and she was in the stands is a false cause fallacy of absolutely no merit, whatsoever.  Did her large breasts cause them to win? NO.  Did she do anything exceptional to help them win?  Apparently not, so it is pointless and without merit. The article mentions that "Busty" “parlayed 15 seconds of fame into a 30-year-career” and became a regular at Celtics games. But the fact that she attended games in and of itself is not noteworthy. And her 30 year career seems to be no more than a collection of snippets on tv and  bit parts in a couple movies, no different from a million other hopefuls.  "Crushing beer cans by slamming her breasts on top of them"  seems more suited for the  Guinness Book of World Records, not an encyclopedia of international repute.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:445:8002:BC40:E467:ECDD:68F8:8DE2 (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I had to come back for this one. I'm going to be blunt, it stinks high heaven. I'm thinking Speedy Delete.  Articles like this are killing WP.  Let me play Simon Cowell, get this thing off the stage.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. M. Pearson (talk • contribs) 05:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I'm back once more. I'd ask the admin. out there responsible for this article, is this what you want WP to become? Big breasted women crushing beer cans?  Maybe they should change it to Wiki-EVERYTHING, because that seems to be where they're headed. My cranky advice, don't waste time on no-brainers.  Leave the kid gloves for those cases that deserve it.  This article is starting to embarrass itself.  I can feel it. What?  You're irked by my lack of decorum?  Yeah, no kidding.  Get rid of it!--J. M. Pearson (talk) 05:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for relisting. Are the people (all 2 of them) who voted to keep serious?  "A bit of coverage as a Celtics fan" might be the most feeble notability argument I've ever seen. And no, the "promotional aspects" cannot be fixed - and why would anyone, other than the subject, want to bother?  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  11:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability is based on coverage in reliable sources, not whether the person deserved to get that coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep She has significant coverage in the news over time. I'm sorry that you don't like her, but "I don't like it" isn't an argument to be used at AfD. The article needs work, but it can be added to with the tons of sources out there about her. This article isn't going to "ruin" Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia that we are building about what people have considered notable over time--and if you feel that what she is doing in in "bad taste" then take comfort in the fact that this article can help document the way that women have navigated their lives in the 20th and 21st century, which is not an unworthy topic. The subject of the article is notable enough to be the main topic in multiple news and print sources and that should really be the end of the discussion since she passes GNG. Here is a sample of some RS covering her: Cosmopolitan, 100 things Celtics Fans Should Know and Do Before they Die, Huffington Post, Boston Magazine, Post Tribune, The Washington Post, and Boston Globe. These are all over time, some as far back as 1987 and up to the present day. I'm not including all of the Daily Mail and Mirror type write ups, of which you can Google and see a lot of. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SPIP: "Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article."  Several of the examples listed are behind subscription walls, and can't be checked easily; most of the others are structured exactly the way publicists structure promo pieces that they send around to publications on slow news days, hoping to get a few column inches; and the book entry is, by its own admission, a "brief reference".  Perhaps that's good enough to pass WP:GNG, but not WP:UCS, in my opinion. It appears that consensus is now leaning toward "keep", and that's fine - I don't have strong feelings either way.  I would just point out that the bar should be higher than simply GNG when the article is mostly promotional, and largely maintained by the article's subject herself.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  00:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what WP:SPIP has to do with the sources I provided, since aside from the brief mention in the book, they are mostly about her. I took some care to select sources that showed she would pass GNG. It's pretty easy to get access to HighBeam, so if you'd like to be able to check those results when they get turned in at AfD, I suggest applying for the rights at the Wikipedia library like I did. It's pretty useful since it's a great broad source of information. I really don't care who started the article or who is maintaining it when I'm arguing whether or not the subject is notable. Those are separate issues which should be handled through channels outside AfD. If you know that there is a COI, please tag the article appropriately and report the issue. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Did, some time ago. Subject removed it. But again, I really don't care. I just thought that when there are multiple issues, they should all be considered. Perhaps I'm just naive.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  20:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're naive: it's your way of handling the situation, . My approach to the process is to separate page issues (that don't concern notability) from the process of discovering whether or not a subject is notable when I'm working on an AfD. Also, I'm big on fixing/tagging a problem as soon as it appears on Wiki so we can work together to fix them. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- per WP:NOTNEWS; Wikipedia is not a tabloid and I don't see anything beyond sensatinalised coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.