Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international pornographic actresses

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. J04n(talk page) 16:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of international pornographic actresses

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

No discernible inclusion criteria. This appears to be an eccectrically selected list of porn performers (quite a few nn), translated from a list on de-wiki with different notability criteria, sourcing requirements, and BLP standards. Laced with claims lacking reliable sources and, even worse, BLP violations like unreferenced "real names". An incoherent, useless mess. Just what "international" means here is incomprehensible. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't like saying "per nom", but HW hit the nail on the head. BLP is a BIG problem with this list. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely unacceptable violation of BLP to have this list in unsourced form. Carrite (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Remove unsourced content about their actual names and birthdates, and rename to List of pornographic actresses. This would satisfy BLP issues, the unnecessary distinction of whom is "international," and also retain the article as a useful navigational aid in congruence with WP:LISTPURP. Also, many people appear to find this article quite useful; it often receives over 2,000 page hits a day (see this Wikipedia article traffic statistics link), and received 63,278 page hits in March 2013. Surely this would be a better option than outright deletion. Also, how is this "an incoherent, useless mess" (per the nomination) when the page receives such high numbers of page hits? The page reads rather coherently, is organized alphabetically and has sections. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no real inclusion criteria. It reads like a "favorite pornstars by user X or Y", there is no apparent reason that justify the inclusion of the current names and the exclusion of others. The above proposed renaming would let us with a too broad criterum for inclusion and an almost impossible-to-complete list that, if completed, would be the most long article in WP and not helpful for navigation. We already have a List of Asian pornographic actors so who wants can create similar lists for other nationalities. Cavarrone (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unmaintainable Shii (tock) 04:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons identified above. Kabirat (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2013 (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.