Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
From: Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net
We deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_big-bust_models_and_performers due to sourcing issues. It was overturned at DRV without the sourcing issues ever being addressed. It was relisted and speedy kept. It still has sourcing issues.
What is "big"? Where is the external source that defines "big"? What sources are used to include the individuals concerned? No sources are cited. The lead of the article is original research and the contents is "phwooooar! look at the tits on that!"
It is always dispiriting when an article that reduces the average quality of the project is kept in this way...
I voted to delete this article. I think it's a steaming pile... or at least a wobbly mound.
But please, I really, really, REALLY wish that people would ease up on the hyperbole. A case where one specific article or edit is handled inappropriately does not mean that the process is broken.
No, it just goes towards proving the point. If VFD wasn't broken, it wouldn't have been deleted (and the servers wouldn't have come to a screeching halt like they did). VFU got renamed to DRV after people screamed "it's not a vote!" and has been held hostage by a few process wonks since.
"List of big-bust models and performers" is somewhere reasonably near the borderline. _I_ happen to think it's well outside, but, you know, pressure from groups of people can and does shift the borderline for articles where there are "special interests."
"List of women with silicon tits that we've seen in porn" doesn't have the same ring to it, does it? Before the toolserver asploded, the "most read" list of articles on Wikipedia was full of this and crap like it.
There is also a consistent tendency to apply lower standards for articles that are "fun" and that invite casual participation by non-expert users.
However, [[Exploding whale]] is well-sourced and well-written. (For 10 bonus points, find article X that quotes "exploding whale" in an example of a usage of X.)