Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity Bra Sizes

Celebrity Bra Sizes

Dear God, no. Calton | Talk 11:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; there is ample precedent for lists of people by measurable physical feature. See, for example, List of United States Presidents by height order. However, this article should be retitled (possibly to List of people by bra size) and reformatted. —Psychonaut 11:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean precedent like List of redheads? Oh, wait, wrong link: List of redheads. --Calton | Talk 12:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean measurable physical features. —Psychonaut 13:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are rather more female celebrities than there are Presidents of the US. Several orders of magnitude more, in fact. And that's before you start to ask about why this particular measurement, rather than, say, shoe size, was chosen. Yup, breastcruft. WP:PHWOOOOAR! LOOK AT THE TITS ON THAT! has never been a valid inclusion argument and I hope never will be. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be partly an how to guide to fitting bras and partly a list of information that is is mainly unsourced and where sourced uses unreliable sources. Unlike the list of US Presidents, how do we decide who is a "celebrity". The list also has potential WP:BLP issues. Gwernol 12:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gwernol. This needs to be deflated. MER-C 12:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT - this is an indiscriminate collection of pointless and unverifyable information. Peripitus (Talk) 12:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Exactly per nom. I couldn't have put it better myself. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense citing nonsense. The nomination is poorly crafted. If you couldn't have said it better yourself, you lack the expressive skills desired for an editor of a meaningful project. --Kevin Murray 18:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Nonsense citing nonsense" is pretty good description of the article itself, actually. --Calton | Talk 22:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not reliable sources at all to back up any of the information. Jayden54 14:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayden makes a valid point, but not to delete; let's seek documentation instead. --Kevin Murray 18:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if there were a thousand references from reliable sources in this article, it would still be listcruft. -- Kicking222 14:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP is full of lists. There are Admins encouraging lists as a centralized link source, to shorten articles. --Kevin Murray 18:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what article, exactly, is this article shortening? -- Kicking222 19:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Invasion of privacy, information like this would not belong even in the bios so no reason whatsoever to collect a list over it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a matter of personal opinion being cited as an implied unpublished WP standard. Celebrity bust measurements are commonly published and included in biographies. --Kevin Murray 18:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity bust measurements are commonly published and included in biographies. Outside of Playboy centerfold data sheets, where would that be? --Calton | Talk 22:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - listcruft, inherently unverifiable, the POV issues with who is and isn't a celebrity, and the fact that listing women by breast size is demeaning, unless they themselves make the size of their body parts an issue (and, yes, I am thinking of the List of big-bust models and performers here, which is less egregious than this). -- The Anome 14:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More personal opinion which is irrelevant tot he application of WP standards. Porno is demeaning but prominently a part of WP.--Kevin Murray 18:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in every way agreeing with The Anome, especially comparing to the other list. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and BJAODN. Hahahahahahahhahahahaha no. --- RockMFR 15:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doomed to be OR, quite possibly problematic per WP:BLP, total lack of reliable sourcing. (And it doesn't list the celebrities I really wanted to know about either.) - Eron ^Talk 15:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article doesn't include who you want to see included, expand the article -- this is WP! --Kevin Murray 18:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, even I had five minutes alone with my favourite celebs and a tape measure, the results would be deletable as Original Research. - Eron ^Talk 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as just about the definitive example of "unencyclopedic". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - is this what we want our wiki and community to be known as? Ronbo76 17:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like it or not breasts are a notable subject, and can be an integral part of a performer's fame. I think that more than anything it demonstarte that women can be successful as sex symbols without having enormous glands. It seems strange for evaluators (above) to consider this list "beneath" WP standards considering the huge emphasis on pornography including detailed standards for inclusion of pornstars and their films. I would like to see some references cited, but don't toss this out. --Kevin Murray 18:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ~~for treating women like objects. For shame!. Would we even think about keeping List of men by cock size?~~ for including Queen Elizabeth. Recury 18:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the statistics were published, I'm sure that there would be an article about this as well. --Kevin Murray 18:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because we would delete it immediately for being unencyclopedic, just like we're doing with this one. Recury 19:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep When describing a female celeb. Some stats we use are height, weight, and most importantly, bra size. Bra deserve the same respect as the rest, per above. It would be a disgrace if the article is deleted.--Certified.Gangsta 19:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some stats we use... We? --Calton | Talk 22:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"most importantly"? Astounding. — coelacan talk — 23:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While its list is certainly amusing and useful (hehe), this list fits in definition of indiscriminate collection of information perfectly. MaxSem 20:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MaxSem. And Kevin Murray, please stop trolling the discussion. Veiled personal attacks are still personal attacks. Danny Lilithborne 22:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danny, I will call a spade a spade. If editors are mindlessly adding deletes just to jump on the wagon or to express personal opinions it is inappropriate. Pointing out an error is not a personal attack. I don't consider calling attention to laziness or incorrect actions "trolling." --Kevin Murray 23:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*That is a massive assumption of bad faith there; please don't confuse humor with laziness. Your comment to User:JzG is absolutely a personal attack. You are not doing yourself or your argument any good by stooping to this kind of behavior. Gwernol 23:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote, anyway. Deletion discussions are judged on the merit of the arguments put forth, not on the number of unexplained soundoffs. Trust the closing admin, stop bugging people, and don't worry about it. --Masamage 23:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're wright of course. I got carried away. Sorry. Gwernol 00:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As JzG says at the top of the article, it's pretty obvious why this exists and List of celebrities by shoe size doesn't. If the one isn't notable, neither is the other. --Masamage 23:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Salt the earth per Kevin Murray and "Certified.Gangsta". Nothing but breastcruft. Not one single serious argument to keep, and no such argument could be made. — coelacan talk — 23:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Biting my lip to avoid all the jokes that spring to mind, the bottom line is that in most cases there's no reason to sort people by physical attributes. The main exception might be when a physical attribute is typically used by an industry in some sort of official capacity. For example, boxing commonly lists boxers by height, weight and reach, so one could reasonably argue that it makes sense to create lists sorting articles about boxers into weight classes, ordering by height or ordering by reach. By contrast, bra size has no particular official use for (most) female celebrities. It might be possible to come up with some industry that would find bra sizes actually a very useful statistic, but the broad overall category of "celebrities" isn't that industry. Dugwiki 23:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sexist trivia unless someone wants to start Celebrity penis sizes. Her Pegship (tis herself) 00:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dugwiki. Well said. GassyGuy 01:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides everything else, possible violation of compilation copyright by Celebrity Sleuth. Argyriou (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable, unsourced, not to a list that is arbitrary and poor added value.-- danntm ^T _C 05:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Apology: After reading some of the comments above, I feel that I should clear my chest, and be very upfront about my pointed error. I feel like a complete boob about the whole thing -- I was sucked in by the emotion. Clearly my firm standards have sagged and I tried to milk this subject to the bitter end. Hopefully I’ve been weaned from my evil ways. --Kevin Murray 06:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not the topic I mind as such (comparing these seems like a popular phenomenon), it's the definition of "celebrity". Basically, this is a list of random trivia about random people, with a little bit of verification problems. Also standardisation issues (I was under the impression cloth sizes aren't universal and manufacturers might lie anyway - Ever seen cloth sizes that actually mean anything? Okay, maybe it's just that I'm a guy and I never read the manuals anyway and I can't make sense of all these weird numbers =) Also, some issues with the content: "Smallest" and "Biggest" are misleading because they're based on the list itself and not any source that would actually say anything about biggest and smallest. Sorting is done by first name rather than last name. The intro about bra sizes is needless and is already covered elsewhere. Etc etc... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a defining characteristic, and subject to change without notice. Having very large (or very small) breasts might be a defining characteristic for some notable people, but the exact size is not notable. This article might be of interest to friends of the celebrities at Christmas or near birthdays, but is of no general interest. Heck, I'm a huge fan of boobs (large or small), and I have no interest in this article whatsoever. Almost certainly impossible to provide reliable sources in most cases (sources may be available in some cases, but are unlikely to be reliable sources). Hopelessly indiscriminate, with insurmountable verifiability issues, and potential WP:BLP problems. (And, at the very least, must be renamed!) -- Xtifr _tälk 23:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Funny, but no. Silensor 03:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Calton and JzG. Relevant policies include: WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory. I am voting to note that this page may be appropriate for WP:DAFT. Eluchil404 08:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]