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. The strong consensus here is that BLP concerns over sourcing and inclusion criteria present such a problem that deletion is the only reasonable outcome. Kevin (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of actresses in the MILF porn genre[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost this entire article is sourced from the imdb, which is NOT a reliable source. This article thus breaches BLP in numerous ways. I could remove 94% of it, but I'm wondering whether there are any valid sources for such a list as oppose to perhaps an article on the subject. Is there such a genre? And would the "actresses" listed self-describe as being in it? Whatever happens there must not be any entries here sourced from the imdb. (This is almost a G10 speedy). Scott Mac (Doc) 00:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS - this may also be felt to be WP:OR.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The list appears to have quite a well-defined inclusion criiteria compared to other porn-genre lists that have been deleted in the past. Determining whether a movie is in the "MILF porn genre" does involve some original research, although by using common sense, any adult movie with words such as "MILF" or "Hot Mom" in the title will be within the genre. IMDB is generally considered reliable for filmography info, so using it as a source for whether someone has performed in certain movies seems acceptable to me, although it shouldn't be used to source the birth years. Epbr123 (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mainly for BLP concerns. ~~We have a category for this.~~ I thought we had a category for this and would be less opposed to a category than a list, as a category by definition only includes articles that exist. I see little benefit of this list over a category, and a major disbenefit in that it will act as a magnet both for porn spammers and for cyber bullies attacking people by calling them MILFs (at this moment in time it already has a string of redlinked names). Ϣere SpielChequers 10:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Category:MILF pornography isn't currently used for individuals, but if it was, it would probably cause more BLP concerns than the list. A category would be unsourced, unwatched and harder to maintain. The red links in the list should probably be removed though. Epbr123 (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite right. A category is created only by the adding of tags to an article. No article should be tagged unless the referenced text supports the categorisation. The problem with lists is that unless the referencing is on the list itself (and most people say "oh the referencing is on the linked article") then if the references are deleted from the liked article, the list is not updated, and no one knows.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Categories would suffer from the same problem, so in this case at least we should have a list and insist on references in the article. Keep with that caveat. Polarpanda (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected - the category doesn't name individual actresses. ~~However the article is still littered with redlinked names~~ - how do we tell if a redlinked poorly referenced name on this list is an attack or merely spam? Ϣere SpielChequers 13:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the redlinked names should probably be removed. Although I can't see any current BLP problems with the redlinked names, as they're all sourced. IMDB is reliable enough to confirm the existence of a porn actress. If people have a problem with IMDB being used as a source, it can easily be replaced by links to movie reviews on trade journal websites. Epbr123 (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see the tidy up. Still see the maintenance of this list as an ongoing battle against BLP violations. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Imdb is an anyone can edit directory more or less. This is not an encyclopedia article. This exists to drive traffic to for-pay porn sites. Also original research, huge blp concerns, etc. etc.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP concerns, as improperly sourced, and as fanwank. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if source is unreliable, deletion is a no-brainer - Pointillist (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDb sources = strong BLP concerns. Aditya Ex Machina 15:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actresses? LOL. Seriously, per BLP issues. Warrah (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Jack Merridew. A classic example of what Wikipedia does not need. Enigma^msg 18:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think the existence of a well-enough-defined "genre" is established, or that letting the video titles serve as definitive criteria is good enough for encyclopedic purposes. I remember, while checking out sources in a porn actress article, coming across a hilarious page listing actresses who were simultaneously appearing in films as "teenagers" and "MILFs," showing (at least to me) that this list is dependent on the marketing decisions of producers rather than reliable secondary-source classifications. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Clearly notable and article no longer uses imdb as a source. Klassikkomies (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but still the odd Japanese blog? Futher, there's still no evidence of any objective classification of these "actresses" as being in this genre.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read the article you would have seen that the contributors have provided numerous reliable sources for the level actresses involvement in the genre and only actresses known as MILFs are mentioned here. Klassikkomies (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Known by whom?--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By reliable sources. Klassikkomies (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, and the obvious BLP concerns present in this article. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe, as a whole, the encyclopedia is better off without articles like this. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Some weak advertising citations that link on to porn sites, a magnet for BLP infringements. Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Speedy Delete, wikipedia is not a guidebook. Someidiot (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, since what constitutes "MILF porn" is itself poorly defined, the list is essentially original research - actresses will be included and removed based on editor's opinions rather than verifiable facts. Someidiot (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Because this list is now properly sourced if this nomination leads to deleting this article and listing actors or actresses is not seen as encyclopedic material we should also delete the following lists:

God, I hope so, and i'd bet so do many people included in these "encyclopedia entries."Bali ultimate (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listed by Klassikkomies (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I recently tried to kill "List of male performers in gay porn films," but I wasn't successful. Thank you for pointing out some other lists that need to be re-evaluated for inclusion in this project. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me too. I agree with deleting the first seven, but am not concerned about the rest. Saying someone is an actor or of a particular nationality is rarely an insult on a par with incorrectly classifying someone as a pornstar; Therefore the BLP risks of the other lists are orders of magnitude less. Ϣere SpielChequers 00:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and please watch for:

List of pornographic actors who played the President of the United States
List of actresses in the MILF porn genre who played a wannabe Vice President of the United States (such as Lisa Ann)

Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Many of these, particularly the first 7, would seem to fail per WP:Overcategorization. Someidiot (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I largely agree with the rest of the deletion reasons given above. I think the "List of X" pages have gotten a bit out of hand. Maybe this is a good time to initiate a "crackdown", so to speak, on unreferenced (or poorly referenced) and/or non-encyclopedic lists. Killiondude (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Mostly unreferenced, no indications of notability in the article, yet another BLP and maintenance nightmare - Alison ^❤ 04:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The various Fooian Fooer lists or categories I don't see as problematic per Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. That there is a MILF genre I accept as established and notable. That the actresses listed (WP decided to rename pornstars actresses 6.6) have appeared in MILF porn is also established by the sources, and this list is better than many in that regard. What is more difficult to determine is whether this is a significant part of their career or not. Without the title of the article being qualified like some of the other examples that use "who appeared in" or "who have played," the implication is that this is their primary or sole porn genre. If they've done 500 porn movies and only 2 are MILF ones, is that notable? Infrequent or one-time-only performances might be notable. Bond girl does a fairly good job of addressing significance of one-time roles (though it could be better); there are articles and books on the topic of Bond girls, and [Template:James Bond actors] makes sense as well. If the list were strictly of actresses who have mainly or only appeared in the genre, or if the title were broadened to be List of actresses who have appeared in the MILF porn genre or something like, I'd still have a question as to the significance; I wonder about the "actors who played Santa Claus" above too. There is then also the question of how notable they are within the genre. That is, supposing someone makes nothing but these films, they might do that yet have failed to obtain notably positive or negative reviews, notable sales, awards, or a sizable fanbase. At the same time, Wikipedia is not paper, but in this case I don't mean so much that it can be infinitely large, but rather that being web-based means it has affordances print encyclopedias do not necessarily have the capability of having. Navigation of a paper encyclopedia is primarily simply alphabetical (is it possible to page through Wikipedia articles alphabetically?), and when other topics for which there are entries are mentioned in an entry, they're typically bold or something (been a while since I looked at one). Both the number of articles and the affordances to my mind justify the existence of navigational tools like lists, categories, templates and so on. As long as the organizing topic is not one that is potentially libelous, or completely trivial, or too small, or so large as to be unwieldy, if people are motivated to create them, I'm not sure that's a problem. Anyhow, it's something I've been pondering and may end up essaying eventually. While I think it makes sense this particular list came to AfD, rather than immediately "initiating a 'crackdown'" on the other ones linked above, I think it would make sense to keep WP:BEFORE AfD in mind and consider tagging the lists, or initiating talk page discussions on them, or contacting the creators and active editors and wikiprojects, or prodding them to get an explanation of their significance added to the lede if there isn't one. Or proposing or actually merging them into their relevant articles if there are any, or articlifying them. I also think there should be more discussion somewhere regarding Wikipedia's classification guidelines/category structure. I am not sure where the best place to do so would be. Portal:Contents? Шизомби (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - As the list stands right now, it appears to be a good list to keep on Wikipedia. In the introduction to the list, it states the inclusion criteria for what a MILF is (meaning that within that context, it's not original research), and then gives a nicely researched and sourced list of actresses that fall in that range. Since the standard on Wikipedia is verifiability and not truth, the sourcing provided clearly establishes that. And as for the notability, it's a list of actresses - if it comes down to it, we cull out the ones that aren't notable and keep the ones that are on the list. By and large it seems like a useful and well researched source of information for the encyclopedia. Lithorien (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per wp:before, a criteria for inclusion has been added, red links removed and new sources are available since nomination. I puzzled by some of the discussion here about issues with other list, seems to be a clever way of using the WP:OSE argument and not a strong reason for deletion. Also the argument about the encyclopedic nature of this kind of articles is immaterial to this discussion when multiples sources are available to establish notability, after all Wikipedia is not censored. We have several methods of dealing with BLP issues, including the basic edit bottom at the top of the page. --Jmundo (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It should be a category rather than an article. Also the "IL" in MILF seems somewhat POV. Doc Quintana (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it should be a list rather than a category to allow for "level of involvement". Polarpanda (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A listing of performers in a clearly defined genre of adult entertainment. Well-sourced, notable, and of encyclopedic value. The article as originally nominated may have been inadequately sourced, but it was sourceable and therefore a candidate for improvement, not deletion. The Delete !votes-- ignoring the many "I don't like it" ones-- put forth various spurious arguments. Chief among these is that this list is a potential BLP violation. Bullshit. If the listings are sourced, and the subject has an article, this can in no way be considered a BLP violation. If someone puts an entry on the list which is unsourced or doesn't belong there, we remove it. This is the very foundation of Wikipedia editing. If the very existence of terms like "MILF" or "mobster" are "potential" BLP violations, then we need to put into place software which will block terms like this from being added to any article. This would, of course, be insane because there actually are MILF performers, as there are mobsters. Use of these labels, when verifiable and appropriately sourced, is completely encyclopedic. We see sister AfDs-- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British mobsters and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Irish American mobsters getting thrown out. Since the MILF genre is as clearly defined as a mobster, and this list is even better-sourced than those, I suspect the difference we see here is the continuing bias among some people that violence is more "respectable" than sex. Which is, I believe, unfortunate. (The allusion to "Japanese blogs" is confusing. The only thing I see which might be construed as such is a weekly column by a published authority on Japanese erotic entertainment. The site which hosts it has a name similar to the U.S. "About.com" which, I think, has been thrown out as a source. But the Japanese site has no connection with the U.S. one.) Dekkappai (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.