Talk:List of big-bust models and performers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:
Pornography Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Pornography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
List This article has been rated as list-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] NICE PAGE

This is almost as good as xentertainment.org thumbs up : )

[edit] Results?

What were the results of EPBR123's Af'd? And the page about him? The Rypcord. 04:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion Nominee

Where is Busty Angelique (Angelique Dos Santos)? This "Outstanding Characteristic" page is exactly why she has 5000 image hits on yahoo...........

Also, Nina Mercedes, Tanya Danielle?

Haley Paige, Yael Bar Zohar, Racquel Darrian, Rimma Agafoshina, Akira Lane, Great Milos, Alexa Rae, Avy Scott, should all be deleted; Not meeting requirements...........

Too Obscure: Roxy (Shelley Lubben), Msjayhawk 19:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I removed Paige, Zohar, Darrian, Agafoshina, Lane, Milos, and Rae. Scott seems borderline to me after a quick reading of her filmography... Valrith 23:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • How about Angelique, Have you researched her? She was really one of the pioneers of the big bust internet. Whoever keeps deleting her has no idea what they are doing........ It is like deleting Mickey Mantle from the list of notable yankees......... Msjayhawk (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, without an article for her, there's not much point in listing here. I believe Angelique Dos Santos got AfD'd. Xihr (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
"The problem is, without an article for her, there's not much point in listing here." People keep saying this. However WP:N seems to me to state the contrary: "If appropriate sources [to establish notability] cannot be found, if possible, merge the article into a broader article providing context." Jeh (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Not sure how that's relevant here, because this article doesn't provide any "broader context" except a pure link -- and in this case, it would be a link that goes nowhere. Note that I think she's notable and I think she should obviously be listed here and have her own article, but obviously the AfD-happy folks out there don't agree. Given that the article has been AfD'd, I don't see the point in attempting to list it here. Xihr (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, yeah... But then once it's in the other article, it must be removed because it's NN because... there's no Wiki-article on it. I don't get it either, Jeh, but I've been playing along with it for a while... Better for the blood-pressure. Dekkappai (talk) 01:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Sun article

Just for the record, a small article was written on this Wikipedia article in the UK tabloid The Sun. [1] No direct link was provided. Joshdboz (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. "A company source said: “We were getting so many searches for these women that we decided to set up a single-hit listing of web-surfers’ favourite busty ladies." -- Wonder if that "company source" that started this list will chip in next time it's up for deletion? Dekkappai (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Funny. Thanks for sharing. My understanding is that the article is one of the more popular ones. Xihr (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
"A company source said: “We were getting so many searches for these women that we decided to set up a single-hit listing of web-surfers’ favourite busty ladies." - and the tabloids mock Wikipedia for being unreliable!? Epbr123 (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: This was also picked up by the Asian News International. [2] Joshdboz (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spammed link?

I have remove a link introduced by a WP:SPA on grounds that it does not meet our external linking guidelines, and given that we are dealing with subjects that are living people, I believe that WP:BLP applies too. There is a secondary concern that FranchisePlayer (talk · contribs) may hold a conflict of interest as well, given the minimal amount of work elsewhere with our project. I'm bringing this here for discussion before this escalates, and am requesting further input. RFerreira (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Since I am apparently being accused of having an SPA, I need to emphasize that this is the topic I'm most interested in, and that this page is the one that I most often vist on Wikipedia. I have refrained from editing related articles because I have observed that they are frequently deleted for one reason or another. I don't agree with most of the reasons they are deleted for, but I won't go into detail here.--FranchisePlayer (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This external link has been discussed before, and called both "Spam" and "Vandalism". It is clearly neither. It is non-commercial and functions as a supplement to subjects not "notable" enough for coverage here on Wikipedia. Its subjects could not be more appropriate for this list. It is being used as an outside source for information specific to the subject dealt with on this list. It is not being used to source facts in the article. In contrast to the vast majority of sites dealing with this subject, it is non-commercial and it follows Wikipedia-like guidelines with regards to sourcing and encyclopedic tone. It has a stable history and a large number of editors. As such, it is entirely appropriate as an external link. Dekkappai (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you can claim it's non-commercial. It's really, really obvious that many of the external links it has going out are to commercial sites, and include referral tags. Even mousing over some of the external links on the main page makes that apparent. That makes the site commercial. Xihr (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It's free of ads. How many sites these days can say that? Even Wikipedia has these donation ads once in a while. I've never seen any ads on Boobpedia. It's pretty obvious they don't make money just by my viewing a page (which most ad-filled sites do). I don't have to pay a cent, directly or indirectly, to view everything there. That's pretty non-commercial. --FranchisePlayer (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's free of ads. But it also clearly has referrals and/or affiliate setups with many of the sites that it links to -- they make money if people click through their site and buy subscriptions from the sites they're linking to. That makes it commercial, pure and simple. Xihr (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
so if a site makes any money, it's commercial, pure and simple? Then PBS is commercial. They make money from donations and selling over-priced "packages" from their commericals, not to mention taking money from corporate sponsors. Wikipedia makes millions by asking people to donate, so it's commercial too. That is absurd. Like I said, one doesn't have to pay a cent or look at any ads when reading Boobpedia, and that cannot be said for 95% of the web sites out there. --FranchisePlayer (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
If a site has banner ads that you click through and the site makes money, it's commercial. If a site has affiliate/referral program arrangements with other sites and features their external links, then how is that not commercial? After all, it's quite obvious that they're selectively showing content from sites they have affiliate relations with in order to encourage people to click through. There is nothing sinister about this, but it does make the site commercial. Xihr (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Your first statement is already false - it has zero banner ads. So let's use the PBS example again. PBS has many corporate sponsors; they even show a few "this program is sponsored by" commercials. Are they then a commercial TV station, no different from ABC or CBS? If Boobpedia prefers showing affiliate content, why is their current featured article without affiliate links? If you look at more articles, you'll see lots of them without affiliate links. You must agree that it is free to access and you do not have to look at any banner or text ads while doing so. You also must agree that the same cannot be said for 95% of all web sites. --FranchisePlayer (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
My first statement was a conditional. The difference between showing banner ads that people click through and specialized external links showing licensed images that people click through -- both of which generate revenue for the site -- is a distinction without a difference. That not every outgoing link has an affiliate referral associated with it is beside the point, because many of them are, and they're clearly showing preferred content from the porn sites they have affiliate relations with (since that's the only way they can use copyrighted content, other than licensing it themselves). Xihr (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
If you want to redefine banner ads, that's your business, but we should go by the normal definition here. (Or else we'll start debating what the meaning of "is" is :) Well I agree with you that they need permission to display licensed images, which they sometimes have to obtain through an affiliate relationship. They are also using some images under fair use, which Wikipedia used to do. Boobpedia is indeed less commercial than 95% of web sites by operating on the PBS model, and it is a perfect fit for this article by providing information on subjects which this short list is unable to cover. Thanks for being reasonable during the discussion, Xihr. --FranchisePlayer (talk) 07:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This has been addressed before, then someone else came along and started misbehaving even worse, so the issue got dropped. I agree that it does not meet WP:EL and should be removed; your WP:SPA and WP:BLP issues only strengthen the case. The case against the link is even more compelling since before boobpedia.com was launched, the apparent owner came along and tried to recruit for it on this very talk page (well, now on an archive page). That isn't behavior that indicates that the link is reputable to me; on the contrary. That people find the link useful for other reasons doesn't mean it's appropriate for inclusion as a related external link in Wikipedia. The link should go. Xihr (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:BLP doesn't apply here because this is not a biography. It's just a list of names. During the last discussion, I spent quite a bit of time talking about why the link qualified for WP:EL, and I don't feel like repeating myself unnecessarily. Please look at the archived discussion if you haven't already. The issue of the owner posting an invitation here keeps getting bringing up. That was two years ago, and how does that affect whether this link is appropriate anyway? This talk page is a pretty natural place to talk about a new wiki on the subject.--FranchisePlayer (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:BLP applies because we're not talking about the article itself, but rather the external link which is governed under WP:EL. Hypothetically, if there were a prominent external link that was horribly in violation of WP:BLP, then obviously it would be inappropriate under WP:EL. That's what we're talking about here. Xihr (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I agree that a link in horrible violation of WP:BLP would not be appropriate. However if you want to assert that Boobpedia is in horrible violation of WP:BLP, please support that argument with evidence. --FranchisePlayer (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what? It's a site about porn stars, mentions rather sundry details, discusses their sex lives, alleges various illegal behavior (such as being a call girl), etc., all without proper controls to require citation. It's a WP:BLP violation waiting to happen and explode in their faces, and therefore Wikipedia's. Xihr (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is their policy (see #4). And I just saw this in action a few days ago. Here. Someone claiming to be an insider posted some controversial information without a source, and he got reverted. --FranchisePlayer (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Xihr is right that this is a discussion that was dropped because of another issue... I happen to still hold the opinion that the link is appropriate. But since I am not the only editor with this opinion, perhaps this needs a discussion/vote/or whatever is done for a civil resolution of this kind of dispute? Dekkappai (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The presence of the link on Wikipedia has a large impact on Boobpedia's Alexa rating. [3] (note the link was removed on 28 January) It's not unreasonable to suggest that a link to an arguably commercial site that is this affected by Wikipedia is not useful. Sam Korn (smoddy) 01:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
How do you know that something else didn't happen? And how is this relevant anyway? This is one of the most popular pages on Wikipedia. If the traffic on this page didn't even make a dent on Boobpedia, Boobpedia must be a really, really large site. What I find interesting is that Boobpedia is in the top 20,000 sites, and its traffic has been steadily increasing, suggesting that it's a popular and serious project with a growing following, more reason to keep the link. --FranchisePlayer (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
That's not very good reasoning. Each referral that boobpedia.com gets from Wikipedia is not what's relevant, since that may be low. What is being talked about is the massive boost to the search engine rankings (e.g., PageRank for Google) that a link from a prominent Wikipedia article confers to a site, which results in a huge increase in indirect referrals to the site -- not from Wikipedia itself, but from search engines that have taken notice of the link and are giving the site a good deal of credit. This is basic search engine optimization, nothing revolutionary. That the link, after removed, didn't result in a huge dropoff of the Alexa rating -- which has its own problems as the measure of how popular a site is -- means just about jack squat. As I pointed out above, the apparent proprietor of the site posted here before he launched the site to try to get support, which is tantamount to spamming. So whether the link got him direct referrals is not what we're discussing -- it's whether or not the presence of the link for a number of months was beneficial to his commercial site, to which the answer is invariably yes. Xihr (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
You do know that all Wikipedia external links have rel="nofollow" right? They give not massive, but zero boost to search engine rankings. Look it up. --FranchisePlayer (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This claim of it being a commercial site is as absurd as previous claims that it was spam and vandalism. With all these accusations of how commercial it was, I went back to the site to see if things had changed. They had not. There is no advertising to be seen. Yes, there are external links at certain articles. This is called sourcing. Wikipedia has it too-- you may want to look into it. The fact remains, Boobpedia is far less commercial than nearly every commonly-linked site right here on Wikipedia-- IMDB for one comes to mind. Or are we going to ban any external link that includes a link to another Internet site? Now, instead of these absurd accusations, can we address the issue: As a Wiki on this exact subject is it a valid external link at this list? I have yet to see one valid argument in opposition to this site's inclusion as an external link at this list. Dekkappai (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You are being obtuse, or did not read what I wrote. The point wasn't that they linked to commercial sites, it was that they had affiliate referral programs with those commercial sites and thus make money when people click through (and obviously preferentially show sample content from those referral sites, skewing their display to show what their commercial partners will let them). That's no different from banner advertising, and it is clearly a commercial activity. Xihr (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Dekkappai, but this link is most certainly being spammed by FranchisePlayer, and furthermore it has been demonstrated that this site links to a wide range of commercial adult websites. Take a look at this: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] If this isn't shameless self-promotion, then I don't know what is. RFerreira (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
RFerreira, I've already explained why I am mostly focused on breast-related pages: it is my topic of interest. I actually found Boobpedia through the link here and I am very thankful it exists, since it is almost perfect for people like me looking for information on these models. I've had to battle several removal attempts not just because I like the site, but because I believe it is extremely useful to people who frequent this topic. If you've been following this page, you should know the link has been restored by a number of other editors, not just me. Other editors have also spoken out in defense of the link during past discussions. The link was recently removed through what I graciously called "accidental", but in fact devious means. It used the default undo edit summary while performing a manual deletion [25]. And if you are concerned about SPA, this account is clearly so [26].--FranchisePlayer (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I am much more concerned about an account that has done very little other than to add a specific link to a questionable website over two dozen times over many months. RFerreira (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
What the hell? What I see from all this "evidence" is a low-level edit-war. Since when did edit-war become "Spamming? FranchisePlayer happens to think the link is appropriate, you don't. I've added the link after it's been removed too, because I think it's appropriate. I've explained my reasons many times, and I've never seen a valid counter-argument to them. So am I a "spammer" too? Why not just discuss the issue without the groundless accusations? "Self-promotion?" I happen to know who the owner of the site is, and it's not FranchisePlayer, or are you accusing him of being a sock? But why all the word-playing here? Just answer the question: Why is this external link inappropriate for this list? Dekkappai (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the link may be inappropriate not just because it continues to be part of a spam campaign, but because it is being used for commercial gain as well. If the only thing you did with your account was add this link dozens and dozens of times, I'm afraid that you too could be construed as a spammer. This isn't rocket science. RFerreira (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This "ongoing spam campaign" is just users, such as myself, who think the link is appropriate adding it after it is removed. This is not spamming. As long as this word-play continues, we'll get nowhere. Please discuss the site, the link. It is a non-commercial (translation: It's free, it doesn't have pop-ups or any advertising whatsoever, except for external links, appropriate, within certain articles), Wiki-like site on a subject which is not, and will never be widely covered by Wikipedia. All accusations of who added it first or later and why are irrelevant. Ths link is entirely appropriate. Dekkappai (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
We've already reached an impasse if you're going to start repeating that this site is "non-commercial". It clearly makes a commercial gain. It clearly is being spammed by WP:SPA-type users. That you feel it is WP:USEFUL is somewhat irrelevant. RFerreira (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Like I've already mentioned before, if your definition of non-commercial is having no income whatsoever, you must think PBS is a commercial TV network just like ABC and CBS. I can view everything on Boobpedia / PBS without ads and without paying anything (actually PBS has "sponsored by" commercials sometimes). If I decide to buy something to support Boobpedia / PBS, it's my decision and I am not obligated to. They essentially operate on the same model. I've already explained why I haven't edited more pages on this topic - I'm not going to repeat it. The fact I have had to restore this link many times is because some users seem to forget what this article is about. They see a link with naked pictures and they immediately call it spam. This is a list about adult models with big breasts. Boobpedia is the best resource I've seen that deals with this very subject. This goes beyond just WP:USEFUL, it is an essential resource for anyone interested in this topic and seeking more information. It operates on the PBS model and is less commercial than 95% of web sites out there. If you are concerned about what is relevant in this debate, this is what's relevant. --FranchisePlayer (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Issue happily resolved

<sarcasm>I just looked in and see the question has been happily resolved. Accuse those who disagree with you with spamming and have them permanently blocked. Sure looking forward to the next "discussion" and achieving "consensus" with you guys.<sarcasm/> But seriously, here's one less page for my watchlist. Thanks. Dekkappai (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)