Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Playboy Playmates with D-cup or larger breasts


 * 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 Delete, as pretty comprehensively established below, the D-cup threshold is entirely arbitrary (and porn industry vital statistics are not reliable anyway). Guy (Help!) 11:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Playboy Playmates with D-cup or larger breasts

 * — (View AfD)

Missy1234 tried to nominate this article for deletion but didn't format/complete the nom correctly. I make no suggestion as to its dispostion. Note: Previous AfD resulted in No Consensus. Her reason given on the article's talk page: Valrith 05:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have nominated this article for deletion. it is disgusting and i think it should be deleted Missy1234 23:46, 15 December 2006

Missy1234 later posted a changed reason for the nomination on the talk page. I have pasted it here. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 08:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.Missy1234 19:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Missy with all due respect, being disgusting is not a deletion criteria, Wikipedia 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. Wintermut3 06:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per above, this seems too trivial to be in an encyclopedia. MER-C 07:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * NON ARGUMENT: see my rationales below. Interestingstuffadder 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak delete Per Wintermut3. However, it has to be said this list is remarkable in that every entry has an existing wikiarticle. Weak keep per BCoates' argument. Akihabara 07:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not a coincidence; WP:PORNBIO 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 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.  BCoates 09:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Wintermut3. It is this kind of arbitrary listcruft that makes people ridicule Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia not this weeks issue of Teen Boy Fantasies. MartinDK 10:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear me, what encyclopaedia worth its salt would include this article? Delete it. Sam Blacketer 12:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's similar to another article List of big-bust models and performers. There are objective standards.  Also, these women constitute many of Playboy's more notable models.  Dismas|(talk) 13:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment 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. MartinDK 14:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete way to trivial. A list of all Playmates would be more acceptable. Koweja 16:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment -- NON ARGUMENT -- how is this trivial? playmates are certainly notable and the statistics are verifiable per playboy's all data. Also, breast fetishism 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? Interestingstuffadder 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep 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 List of people in Playboy  by decade.  On the talk pages at Playboy Online and associated pages and in my undeletion campaign for such pages I compared these monthly Playmate of the Month and Cyber Girl of the Month winners to athletes who win Player of the Month.  I note that it is not currently WP convention to have articles for such monthly winners.  Thus, we do not have Player of the Month 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 Home_runs instead.  This list is not different than what is convention in an atmosphere where we do not allow the monthly awardees their own articles. TonyTheTiger 18:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment What was wrong with the prior deletion attempt other than that it was unsuccessful. TonyTheTiger 18:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete: 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.Missy1234 19:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Missy1234
 * Comment: ANOTHER NON ARGUMENTInappropriate is also not a reason. Notability and veriiability, my dear friend. Interestingstuffadder 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Go to the Playmate 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? List of male porn actors by penis size? MartinDK 20:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * comment 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, 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 List of big-bust models and performers, 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. Interestingstuffadder 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete No reliable sources for breast size of persons in list. Some have no mention of cup size in articles. Edison 21:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: 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. Interestingstuffadder 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, listcruft. Why just D-cup should be notable?--Ioannes Pragensis 21:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - 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 List of big-bust models and performers 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 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. Otto4711 21:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - listcruft does not make me horny. Moreschi 21:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment -- NON ARGUMENTsimply 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)


 * Keep --- 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 breast fetishism 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 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. Interestingstuffadder 22:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 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 Wikipedia articles. Arbitrary, non-notable, unverified cruft. Otto4711 00:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 Charlam 00 15:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you'd better nominate List of big-bust models and performers 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 forms...Interestingstuffadder 00:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 at all. 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 performer by genre 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 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. Otto4711 02:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow...maybe you should have a look at civility 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 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. Interestingstuffadder 21:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, condescending comments like "sorry to break it to you" and accusations of censorship are so in the Wikipedia 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. Otto4711 14:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 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 breast fetishism 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 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). Interestingstuffadder 15:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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. Otto4711 16:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - One word: cruft. Split Infinity (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * comment -- why is this cruft? please expand. As it stands you have provided no substantive argument for deletion. Interestingstuffadder 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete pathetic listcruft. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 23:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment -- NON ARGUMENT How is this cruft? see my response to similar votes above. Interestingstuffadder 17:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is the kind of idiocy that makes Wikipedia 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. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 02:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * comment -- NON ARGUMENT 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 "puerile" is not a valid basis for deletion. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, over-specific listcruft. FiggyBee 02:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * comment -- NON ARGUMENT -- 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. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "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 list of fictional detectives from Belgium; Fictional detectives, yes, Fictional Belgians, yes, but the combination is unnecessary, even if some articles fall into both categories. FiggyBee 05:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as listcruft. Nothing to do with the nomination by User:Missy1234, objectionable content is not justification for deletion. wtfunkymonkey 03:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * comment -- NON ARGUMENT -- please explain why this is listcruft. As it is, your argument is extremely conclusory. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete There are already list of big bust models and a list of Playboy Playmates. TJ Spyke 03:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * comment 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. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per TJ, subjective, and uneyclopedic. Yank sox  07:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * comment -- NON ARGUMENT: 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. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete too much - crz crztalk 07:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * comment -- NON ARGUMENT -- nowhere in wikipedia guidelines is "too much" listed as a valid criteria for deletion. What does this even mean? conclusory. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as overly trivial. -- Kicking222 17:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * comment -- NON ARGUMENT -- 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 breast fetishism. conclusory argument. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I hate calling things cruft, so I won't, it is a fairly trivial list that serves no encyclopaedic purpose at all. †he Bread  00:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * comment: see my arguments above regarding accusations of triviality. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. List of big-bust models and performers 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...) GregorB 01:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment is there a corresponding List of Playboy models with A-cup or smaller breasts ? (note I said model and not playmate) If this is kept, perhaps it should be split into cup sizes? 132.205.93.88 03:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I suspect List of Playboy Playmates with A-cup or smaller breasts would be an extremely short article. Fan-1967 18:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * &comment how is this an "arbitrary attribute". see breast fetishism. 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? Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, who needs this. Testikayttaja 12:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * comment -- NON ARGUMENT -- "who needs this" provides absolutely no basis for removing this material. what does this mean? conclusory. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, given that even Playboy themselves note their bustier Playmates with special editions (Playboy's Voluptuous Vixens) I don't see an issue with Wikipedia categorizing them as such either Charlam 00 15:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I cannot see that D-cups are exceptional or noteworthy among this population. Fan-1967 16:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * comment -- 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: . 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. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete &mdash; Vital information for every 13-year-old lad who comes to read wikipedia. Otherwise useless trivia. &mdash; RJH (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * comment -- oh, so wikipedia is too elitist to provide resources that might be useful to these 13 year olds and the likeminded? Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - need help finding big breasts, don't take away this incredibly valuable resource. oops, I meant Delete Jefferson Anderson 22:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * comment -- NON ARGUMENT-- this flippant statement contains no argument based on valid wikipedia criteria. Interestingstuffadder 18:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep "Disgusting" is no reason for deletion. The criteria for the list are clearly defined: Playboy Playmate, D-cup or larger. According to Lists (stand-alone lists), "The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination." Wikipedia is not censored. If one finds this subject "disgusting," one should not be searching on "Playboy Playmates with D-cup or larger breasts." Dekkappai 23:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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: 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 list contributes to the state of human knowledge. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 00:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 Wikipedia. "Listcruft is a term used by some editors to describe lists which they feel are indiscriminate, or of interest only to a very restricted number of people." The article: List of big-bust models and performers is the 16th most-viewed article in the project . 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 lot of people. Also, clearly, in a subject like this, some 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 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 exactly the kind of subject in which Wikipedia has an advantage over traditional, print encyclopedias. Dekkappai 00:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We are not discussing List of big-bust models and performers 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. Wikipedia has no more need of it than it has need of List of pornography websites that don't require membership or List of adult magazines featuring full-frontal nudity that cost less than $10/issue. 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 Wikipedia. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 01:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per TJ and lack of reliable sources. Mike Christie (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep 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. --Hexvoodoo 07:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 Wikipedia. The difference between the KKK article and this is that the KKK article is not cruft that exists solely for 13 year olds. There are plenty of websites on the internet where you could put a list of big-breasted Playmates. Wikipedia is not the place for it. Also, the original nomination criterion may not be valid but that does not mean the page doesn't warrant deletion. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 08:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Like it or not, some people will find this list useful. Wikipedia should not go around deleting articles because certain users are offended. Vidor 10:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep 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. Wikipedia has quite a bit of coverage of adult performers. This is perhaps because adult 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. Captaintruth 14:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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. Otto4711 16:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment 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 why 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 us, only to-- eeeewwww-- foreigners. And who needs information on Islam, since it's only of interest to heathens? Arguments of this sort (we don't want to see it, so it's not useful) are despicable and fundamentally against the principles of Intellectual freedom which Wikipedia claims to espouse. "Ah," but the deletionists will counter, "those articles aren't listcruft. Well, neither is this one, by the definition Wikipedia 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 Edgar Rice Burroughs, and the Oz series out of the reach of children in libraries for decades. These books were too popular. Kids liked them too much, so they had to be 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 notability. 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) Playboy is more than just a very popular, long-running magazine. It has become an institution unto itself. Lists on this subject are useful to those many, and various types of people with interest in Playboy. 2) The Playboy Playmate is central to its popularity. Merely appearing as a Playmate once passes a model of notability requirements under Notability (pornographic actors). 3) And-- avert thine eyes here, o ye faint of heart-- breasts and their size 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: unverifiable. Exactly how is this unverifiable? If you mean it is not yet properly sourced, that can be remedied. But saying it is impossible to source it is an absurd claim. To those who think they are elevating Wikipedia 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 justification of limited shelf-space for their book-banning. You do not. Wikipedia's strength is in covering non-traditional subjects exactly like this one, on which it is difficult, if not impossible, to find reliable, unbiased, objective, non-commercial resources. Those who seek to purge Wikipedia of subjects like these are harming Wikipedia, not improving it. Dekkappai 17:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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. Vidor 22:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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? Fan-1967 22:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 00:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In scrolling through the 12 playmates for 1999, 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. Fan-1967 04:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed! Vidor 06:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you just fix 1999, or did you review all fifty years? A category would be self-maintaining on an ongoing basis. Fan-1967 14:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I promise to check the list against Wikipedia's individual Playmate articles and update accordingly. It's a tough job, but someone's got to do it. Vidor 20:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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? Fan-1967 15:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 category. I would support creating a category if this list does not survive the deletion debate. Interestingstuffadder 15:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Tits. Herostratus 16:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment -- NON ARGUMENTThis is not a valid rationale for deletion. If it is notable and verifiable, it does not matter if it is about tits. Interestingstuffadder 16:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per above arguments in favor of keeping. Notable and verifiable. Most arguments for deleting this list dont seem to say much substantively. Quepasahombre 05:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per BCoates and Vidor. qwm 17:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment 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 others of instigating Ad hominem arguments). However, I'd like to point out that the link that Interestingstuffadder 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 be willing to take time to do that work. Dekkappai 20:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment 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.Missy1234 21:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Missy1234
 * Comment -- NON ARGUMENT -- 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. Interestingstuffadder 21:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * KEEP
 * Comment Could you be more specific? And possibly discover the joy of signing your posts? MartinDK 12:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete 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.  Eluchil404 07:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment This debate more than the existance of this article has proven the complete confusion over what Wikipedia actually is. This would never 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 Wikipedia as an encyclopedia when in reality it is just a collection of random information. Let's just give up trying to market ourselves as an encyclopedia and be honest about what this project really is... a searchable database of random information. MartinDK 12:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"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 world's leading system of demeaning women"
 * STRONG & SPEEDY KEEP. 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 - These delete arguments are disgusting. They are:
 * 1) This list is a list. What? Are you guys gone completely ... (fill in a synonym for mentally challenged)? A list is supposed to be a list, for God's sake.
 * 2) This list is trivial. So, from when Playmate breast sizes have gone trivial? People are continously repeating - trivial, trivial, trivial... - without convincingly explainign why it's trivial. Is this one of those Fascist Propaganda techniques that says - repeat something enough times to make it a fact?
 * 3) Wikipedia is no place for a list like this. Please, check out the essay on what Wikipedia is not before you start adding these comments. I guess, you'll find out faster that Wikipedia is nom place for such ... (fill in another synonym for mentally challenged) arguments.
 * 4) This is useful only to horny 13 year old kids. 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 like that.
 * 5) This should be merged with Playboy and/or List of big-busted models. OK. But, that's an argument for merge, not delete. Please, learn to argue right before you propose something as drastic as a deletion, especially when there are plenty good argument against it (see above).
 * 6) This list is unverified/ incomplete. Just slap a or  notice there. It's easy, and less drastic. Why talk of deletion at this point?
 * 7) This is sexist. Most right. But, to hold this argument valid we should also be taking long hard look at all other sexist articles and lists and categories, 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:

Anyways, jokes apart (though I enjoyed rewriting the Playboy article) - the ground for deletion should be notability, neautrality and verifiability, not opinions like - "It's useless", "It's disgusting" or may be "God will strike you down for having such filthy things in here". The previous deletion discussion about the list (which was titled - List of big-busted Playboy Playmates) 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: This discussion is disgusting.

Let me just one of those arguments, spread over half a dozen comments here, posted by User:Maelin, will be good exercise to press the point that this is disgusting.


 * His last comment was :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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.

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


 * His verdict was Delete and his reason was : This is the kind of idiocy that makes Wikipedia 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.


 * One of his ocmemnts was : We are not discussing List of big-bust models and performers 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. Wikipedia has no more need of it than it has need of List of pornography websites that don't require membership or List of adult magazines featuring full-frontal nudity that cost less than $10/issue. 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 Wikipedia.


 * Another of his comments was : 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: 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 list contributes to the state of human knowledge.'

He also provided a link to No personal attacks which categorically negated his point(s). Jumping to conclusions is easy, research is not.

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 - These nay-sayers are disgusting. Tow more points I must raise:
 * Some Wikipedians here are discussing a vote. Please, understand that WP is not a democracy as voting goes (this comes from Jimmy Wales himself). We are expressing opinions here, not voting. Otherwise, all of you would have been barred from giving your vote twice or more times.
 * Some has also raised questions about the integrity of WP as an encyclopedia. I would suggest that they read the essay on why Wikipedia is so great, and take a notice of the term Free Encyclopedia, not just an encyclopedia.

Good luck to all. Keep fighting, but Keep. I'd propose to all those who'd like to say Delete - please, read whatever Interestingstuffadder and Dekkappai has written here. If you have valid argument against those comments go forward, if you don't, please, take your zealotry somewhere else, and save us the pain. - Aditya Kabir 15:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment 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. Congratulations, you managed to not only prove my point about Wikipedia but to do so in such a thorough and powerful way. Thanks to Interestingstuffadder for asking you on your talk page to come here. A new low point in the history of Wikipedia. MartinDK 15:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: 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. Interestingstuffadder 17:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Please see my talk page for a reply and a link to how my initial comment today should 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. MartinDK 18:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess, User:MartinDK has a point which he has already pointed out on his talk page is response to my apologies for hurting the user's feelings. The user was basically poitning at ... (fill in yet another synonym for mentally challenged) and ... is disgusting 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: 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 what makes Wikipedia so great. 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 friend, especially when his research should've shown otherwise.
 * The adjective disgusting 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 trivial argument. And, the idea of directing it against the very discussion 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 here.
 * The other, mentally challenged, 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.

Well, Reading that rambeling at times incoherent load of personal attacks left and right... A new low point in the history of Wikipedia 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.

Just one more point for any more newbie who may join this discussion - please check the policy page No personal attacks, as well as the article on Ad hominem - before you make accusations of personal attack. Throwing accusations like that casually can obfiscate the debate on hand (like it is doing now). - Aditya Kabir 18:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - 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. Otto4711 19:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment With all due respect, don't knock the importance of sex or boobs. Without them, none of us would be here. ;) Dekkappai 19:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Observation. Those in favor of delete are complaining about attacks, style and length more than those in favor of keep. Any explanation? - Aditya Kabir 19:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

CommentPlease 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. Missy1234 22:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)missy1234

Comment: 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 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 over a dozen Playboy related lists, but it seems that even with the noble Boobpedia 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. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 23:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "a love of convenient ways for finding pictures of boobs".Yup. God bless the Internet. Vidor 00:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep -- 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. Mister Nice Guy 23:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: 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. Dekkappai 23:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, something that would be easier with categories. Fan-1967 05:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's a very useful resource for those interested in both Playboy and large-busted models. --David Hain 09:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge into Playboy Playmates. 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. Tarinth 17:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - quoted bust sizes are notoriously unreliable. I have no problem with the list as such but it has to go as failing WP:V. TerriersFan 23:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * comment: 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. Interestingstuffadder 23:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete: per WP:CLS, 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 WP:OR and/or WP:NPOV violation that "big breasts" must be D-cup or larger and that the resulting list is Playmates with "big breasts".  ju66l3r 00:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Position changed to delete. It seems I got carried away by the non-argument of most nay-sayers. But, it seems the list has not established verifiability, notability or neutrality 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. It's about tits - argument is still unacceptable. P.P.S. Sorry about my last comment, it was not posted with a good intention. - Aditya Kabir 10:30, 23 December 2006 (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.