Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers


 * 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 of the debate was No consensus. humblefool&reg;Deletion Reform 00:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

List of big-bust models and performers

 * Keep: being the author of the Chaz (model) article, I feel quite strongly about this topic. (And, contrary to the opinion expressed by Flowerparty below, Chaz is indeed quite a notable model in this genre.) I think that this list, as earlier asserted, has the potential to become an important and impactful resource. I admit that this list has quite a number of blank spots, but these blanks can be addressed, and, indeed, are being addressed. Personally, I would have filled most (if not all) of the blank spots a long time ago, but my notebook computer, with a lot of relevant information on this topic, is currently in the repair shop. I pledge that just as soon as it is back in my hand, I will at least put up stubs for most (if not all) of the blank spots, and as my leisure time permits, make those stubs more substantial.  Also, if I may add, I believe that it is very easy to know who is is or who isn't in the "big bust" genre or not, since (besides the evidence of one's own eyes) there are some rather authoritative sources to arbitrate, e.g. magazines such SCORE or Voluptuous. And contrary to R. fiend's assertion, Dolly Parton IS famous for more than her bustline, and she is not on this list because she is not a model, whether big bust, topless, glamour, or whatever. She is primarily a musician, and a darn good one if you ask me :) Jalabi99 18:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

This list would seem to represent a valid pornographic sub-genre; there are two main reasons why I think it should be deleted: The second point doesn't mean the genre can't be discussed in general terms, so I propose an article be created at big-bust pornography or possibly big-breast pornography. Flowerparty 00:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The columns of red links are inviting dozens of articles for complete non-notables such as Chantal and Chaz (model) (and probably others) which are in turn clogging up vfd.
 * Who defines which actors have large breasts anyway? Do those listed condsider themselves big-bust models and performers? Chantal doesn't look particularly remarkable in this department, for instance.


 * Keep This article has the potential as a important and impactful resource. A wealth of knowledge.
 * Above vote by 

*Keep - for reasons explained for Keeps.--Bhadani 15:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC) Abstain --Bhadani 19:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I think adding a category tag into the already existing entries would be much better. This kind of lists are just invitations to get tons of microstubs some of which will get expanded (most likely the ones that already are) and the majority will fade into oblivion. drini &#9742; 01:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Unneeded and not NPOV.n MicroFeet 18:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV and we had a discussion about a very similarly titled article not long ago, but I don't remember it's name. -Splash 01:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing you refer to the category, which was deleted (see discussion). Flowerparty 01:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That would be the one, yes, thank you. -Splash 05:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Come on people, don't be a bunch of prudes. -- Crevaner 02:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, we already have a breast fetishism article for people who seek info about this porno genre. The actresses themselves are very transitory and interchangeable; basically, the point is the boobs and we have an article on that.  (A short article, BTW, to which a list of independently notable big-busted models could be added.)  Dcarrano 04:29, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or Develop. Not too encyclopedic in its current form. Problem lies in the lack of a consensus as to what the criteria of a "big-bust" is. The term is almost a weasel term in itself.  Were it more specific, I would be more likely to vote to keep it. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 04:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The self-mutilation which most of these women have performed is not to be encouraged and is (to me) repulsive rather than erotic. -- RHaworth 06:46, 2005 July 18 (UTC)
 * Keep. Those concerned at the number of model listings "clogging up vfd" can either nominate fewer models or remove redlinks, according to taste.  On the subject of which models have big breasts, I'd suggest that this can be ascertained by visual examination.  Chaz has enormous breasts, Chantal's are not really that big (and more to the point she doesn't seem to have much of a public profile).  Normal editing and reference to verifiable sources (Scoreland, Voluptuous, etc) can settle any disputes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, visual examination is not enough. We need to have numbers and something much more tangible than something influenced by POV -- and it doesn't help any that a bulk of the online references provide, through no fault of their own, misleading measurements.  -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 12:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Complete poppycock. The size of the breasts is immaterial; the visual effect and the purpose for which they are displayed provides ample context.  Uncle G's refutation also misses the point.  A list of small people would probably be unencyclopedic but a list of circus midgets would not.  A list of hirsute women would probably be unencyclopedic but a list of bearded ladies would not.  Similarly, a list of big boob models is encyclopedic because there are external criteria that can be used. A big boob model is a woman who models for pornographic or glamor pictures and for whom a selling point of her pictures is the display of her boobs in such a manner as to emphasize and celebrate their size. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The only "external criteria" cited here so far have been your personal opinion as to what constitutes "enormous breasts" and "not really that big".  There has been a marked failure here to produce concrete NPOV criteria.  At least you're trying to come up with one now (which rather belies any assertion that I missed the point); but note that what you've said above is not what the article says, and note that the purported criterion that you've just invented here doesn't appear to actually exclude anybody, since pretty much all (female) pornographic models display their breasts in order to celebrate them, and once again doesn't actually define what a "big-bust model" is in a concrete and NPOV manner. Uncle G 11:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Your argument seems to have been constructed in ignorance of the existence of big boob pornography as a genre. It's very easy to tell if someone is a big boob model.  She has big boobs.  If there's any doubt you ask if she's appeared ina big boob magazine.  We don't need any stronger criterion than that.   Yes, I think you missed the point, by a mile. It's blatantly factually incorrect to claim that "There has been a marked failure here to produce concrete NPOV criteria." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. On the point that model names are interchangeable and ephemeral, that isn't the case historically.  Names such as Kitten Natividad, Chesty Morgan, Mary Waters, and Ushi Digard turn up regularly some decades after their day. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per Tony Sidaway. JamesBurns 10:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, mainly because it is hard to define reasonable criteria for inclusion. / Alarm 10:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, most of these people are no more worthy of articles than the members of a "list of Tesco branch managers", so there is no need for a list of them. 82.35.34.11 13:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as arbitrary list. And come on, people who want pictures of those have the other 90% of the internet to accomodate them :) Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:36, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tony Sidaway. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the only likely place to find encyclopedic coverage of these people. It's troubling that Radiant assumes the only reason users would want to look these people up is to find pictures. Kappa 14:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 *  Keep per Tony Sidaway --malathion talk 14:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Tony Sidaway and Kappa. —Markaci 2005-07-18 T 14:54:12 Z
 * Delete. PoV and impossible to correct -- what determines "big bust" but an opinion? --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The irony of Tony Sidaway's rationale is that it provides an example of why this list is inherently not from the NPOV and doesn't have a place here. "Chaz has enormous breasts, Chantal's are not really that big."  According to what criterion?  According solely to Tony Sidaway's personal definitions of "enormous breasts" and "not really that big".  As Joe Beaudoin Jr., Blu Aardvark, and Alarm say, there is simply no concrete and NPOV criterion laid out here that defines what a "big-bust model" actually is, and who is and who isn't one.  (The suggestion that whether someone is a big-bust model "can be ascertained by visual examination" is, at best, a woolly one.)  The same question of the definition of "big-busted" arises here as does for the definition of "fat" at Votes for deletion/List of Fat People on Television, and it has not been answered.  Therefore, as per Tony Sidaway, Delete. Uncle G 15:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is simply false to say that there are no criterion for who is and is not a big-bust model.  This is a specialist field with a small selection of publications and a relatively small number of models who appear in them.  A big-bust model isn't just a woman with big boobs who models.  If the title bothers you, change it to "Models who appear in big-bust publications" --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's pretty clearly true. The article contains no criteria for who is and isn't on the list except to say that it is only for "big-bust" models (without defining what "big-bust" is), and you've produced no criteria so far other than ones based upon your own personal personal definitions of "enormous breasts" and "not really that big", or non-exclusionary ones that simply include every pornographic model whose breasts have ever been displayed at all.  This article is currently in exactly the same position as the article at Votes for deletion/List of Fat People on Television is in. Uncle G 11:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: This list has no function. Do not ask "what's the harm."  Ask "what's the use" of this article?  First, it is inherently POV and therefore violates the deletion guidelines.  Secondly, it comes from someone's hobby and reflects a private interest.  Third, it is unreferenced by other articles and ever shall be, most likely.  So the fuction is to allow the self-expression of a hobbyist.  Sorry, but that's not what encyclopedias are. Geogre 18:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Geogre. This may be the biggest, most comprehensive encyclopedia in the history of humanity, but it is still an encyclopedia.  It isn't a place for completely subjective comparisons and worthless listings.  Besides, I think politicians are performers, and Ted Kennedy has some pretty big man-boobs, so can I include him in the list if kept? --Scimitar parley 19:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, although contrary to Geogre's assertion it does serve a purpose: it's an index of lousy articles. There's enough porn spam on ther internet already. (Am I the only one who's at all surprised that there's a pornstar template?) The encyclopedic value of most of the porn stars listed (and they all seem to be porn stars; for Chrissakes Dolly Parton isn't on the list, and she's famous for just 2 things, neither of them singing) is dubious. Most articles don't even give their real names, but some do have their turn-ons on the like. It's basically the makings of a porn fansite, which is fine and all, but not in Wikipedia. I'm all for including porn stars who have reached a level of fame/notoriety that goes beyond having fucked someone while an amateur videographer ran his handi-cam. Most are not at that level though -R. fiend 19:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and add a List of small-bust models and performers - so all will be happy, even the girls with small natural boobs. Greetings MutterErde 21:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC) First candidate ( A Playmate ! ) :
 * That would have the same problem as here. There is no concrete and NPOV definition of "small-bust" any more than there is a concrete and NPOV defintion of "big-bust". Uncle G 11:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, As argued by Flowerparty and others this list acts as a catalyst for creation of articles on non-notables. Mark 21:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - not only should this be deleted, but someone needs to go through all the stub pages on non-notable 'actresses' created to remove many of the redlinks and VfD those. Proto t c 15:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep'. Most of the internet is porn. It's a huge industry. We should cover it. Those offended by it are welcome not to work in this area. The arguments about the subjectiveness of the title were excellently dismissed by Mr Sidaway. Clearly, if a model appears in big-bust mags or features on big-bust websites, she is a big-bust model. I am thoroughly amused by the notion that we should have a size bar that busts must exceed for inclusion, although I'm not sure how we'd research it, and I thank Uncle G for the smile. Grace Note 03:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Personally, I'm not offended by pornography. I contriubte to many articles of a pornographic nature myself.  While it may be laughable to you, we need to have a criteria that isn't biased.  Clearly, a set number (via consensus or a group of valid sources) would remove the bias -- because, right now, this list is extremely biased and a majority of the performers listed there are not-notable. This bias of this list, as it stands, violates the spirit (and probably the letter of) the NPOV guidelines. BTW, the recently created List of small-bust models and performers is horridly POVed -- but it eloquently explains why we need a common criteria for "big-bust" (or "small-bust").  -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 10:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The arguments were about the subjectiveness of the list inclusion criteria, and far from "excellently" dismissing them, Tony Sidaway merely came up with further subjective definitions of "enormous breasts" and "not really that big" that only served to exemplify the subjectiveness. Your definition is no better, as it simply dodges the question entirely.  "a model [who] appears in big-bust mags or features on big-bust websites [...] is a big-bust model" does not provide a concrete and NPOV definition of "big-bust".  It merely provides a circular definition.  (Ask what a "big-bust mag" or a "big-bust website" is, and the answer will be "one that features big-bust models".) We don't keep Votes for deletion/List of Fat People on Television because we don't have a concrete and NPOV definition of "fat", and circular definitions such as "a fat person on television is a person who has appeared in fat television programs such as Fat Actress" don't cut it.  We shouldn't keep this, which apparently amounts to "List of fat people in pornography magazines" and has equally circular definitions, for the same reason. Uncle G 17:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * weak Keep because I believe some notable models promote themselves as "large-chested", "big-boobed", etc. List would be definable if restricted to these. Xoloz 04:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sexist. Mandel 12:32, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Breast size isn't really discussed enough when considering female performers...no, wait... Delete. DJ Clayworth 18:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Delete all ill-defined, overly subjective lists.  Delete a second time for idiocy. Quale 20:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Anyone find it odd that this vote is so close, but the List of small-bust models and performers is basically unanimous for deletion (admittedly that article is worse, but still)? Is that ugly systemic bias rearing its head again? -R. fiend 22:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Reply: Actually, the List of small-bust models and performers has one vote -- from the creator. Otherwise, I believe one of the reasons that the vote is nearly unanimous is due to the fact that the article is new.  Now, the "big-bust" list is older and has been worked on by others, and there is probably a sense of attachment to this article from its contributors.  Hence the debate. Just my two cents. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. 22:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I did say "basically" unanimous; I do have to wonder about a vote that has the comments "I hate fake tits", but no matter. As for the "people vote keep because they worked on the article" rationale, well, I've seen it before and my response is the same. It seems to make more sense that people work on articles because they think they are worth keeping, not that they think articles are worth keeping because they worked on them. -R. fiend 22:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep given the number of valid links in the article, the point is moot
 * ''Above vote by


 * Keep I think this list was very useful, I don't suppose it's easy to understand. But just as people are interested in what happened to mainstream celebrities of the past, people who follow the careers of these models would find it very helpful to have this index handy. Also, I'm not sure that information can be stupid by definition. If it's a genre that exists, doesn't having a reference of it serve the mission of the wikipedia?
 * ''Above vote by


 * Delete as per Uncle G and others. DES 20:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep (and, yes, I started the article...) tregoweth 22:58, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but an eye should be kept on the quality of entries (Kerry Marie currently only a link and photo), so notability can be recognized. 22:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Semi-encyclop&aelig;dic. --Matjlav 23:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Simple definition: a model or performer whose principal claim to fame is her "big" bust.  We don't need to set a minimum circumference; we just rely on the marketplace.  If she's moving lots of copies of Busty, Gent etc., then she obviously has what the average consumer of breast fetishism pornography regards as "big-bust."--Jpbrenna 18:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: Simply because the concept of a "big-bust" performer can be abused does not mean that it is non-notable. As per the anonymous vote (from 22:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)), we simply must keep an eye on the article so that non-notable performers are not included. jglc | t | c 18:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete A list of performers who have large breasts (with no other criteria) does not strike me as encyclopedic, especially if many of the models have no other notability, and a limitted one at that. Now, if it were a list of performers who are especially notable for having large breasts (e.g. Lolo Ferrari) then I think it would certainly be worth keeping. Without some extra criterion for inclusion, this list could easily include every porn star with breasts over a certain size, and/or every performer to ever be featured in a themed item of media, which strikes me as both un-maintianable, and listcruft. --Icelight 00:19, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. While it is a good way to browse pron, it is a vague criterion, prone to abuse and someone can decide to have list of models for every vaguely unique body part. pamri 12:45, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Scimitar and R. fiend. Basically, it's not encyclopedic and lists too many non-notables. --Courtkittie 05:22, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Very encyclopedic and scientific.   ‡   Jarlaxle   21:23, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-encyclopedic. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:53, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Also Strong keep. Some can be edited out, others need additional input, Kitten Natividad is a case in point, as you can't discuss director Russ Meyer without mentioning her. Yes "big-bust" is a slightly vague term, but if it encompasses more than a few, so what?  The underlying thread of VFD seems to be a dislike for the topic.  There is more info here than on IMDB, which is very handy.
 * Above vote by 


 * Delete. Yet another pointless list (agree with all prior comments about it being a very vauge catagorisation)
 * Above vote by 


 * Delete Statues of hydrocephalus victims aren't funny. What? Oh... that kind of large bust. Then woefully POV, not useful, and spam magnet.   brenneman (t) (c)  11:57, 30 July 2005 (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.