Deletion of List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex (2nd nomination)

Comment: There shouldn't be any |OR or BLP problems if the list is kept well-sourced
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: This is an embarrassment. Wikipedia is not a porn site. Is that a good enough reason? In WIkipedia, we have rules, like . It's just totally not a sensible place to be trying to maintain such a list. "I watched the film, and saw real sex" is NEVER going to be an admissable reason for including the film. And if the film really, obviously does include unsimulated sex, what does that mean? This list is doomed to be wrong, anyway! I have no qualms about porn as such; it's fine, this is the 21st century. It's just not encyclopaedia material. Please take this list elsewhere. Further, all the other "delete" reasons are very valid appeals to real Wikipedia policies (second Steve Dufour, The Four Deuces). Please respect the polices. Thanks
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: the keep arguments above don't address the fundamental problem with this article: it lacks a clear, objective definition of 'mainstream'. It is unarguable that there have been many films containing unsimulated sex; the problem with this list is that it attempts to only include 'mainstream' films, which is inherently almost impossible to define. I understand that commercial pornographic films are meant to be excluded, but on what grounds are films included? What ''makes'' these films 'mainstream'? If a clear set of criteria cannot be given, then this list is ultimately / and should be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:POV)

Comment: I am at a loss as to how this is original research if there are sources that confirm that the unsimulated sex happened. Nor do I agree that there are BLP concerns in the presence of sources, which includes the primary source of the film itself (and the hatchet that's been taken to this list recently by an overzealous editor is a tremendous error in judgment on his part, but that's an issue for the talk page). There is no support for the claim that inclusion on this list constitutes an accusation of illegal activity against these films' creative personnel. The inclusion of this list does not imply that Wikipedia is a "porn site" so no, that is far from a good enough reason unless the editor believes that all articles related to sexually explicit material, pornographic actors and sex workers should be deleted. Searching for sourcing is a little more diffiult with this subject matter but a simple search for "unsimulated sex mainstream films" turns up http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&source=hp&q=unsimulated+sex+mainstream+films&cf=all several dozen Google News results some http://books.google.com/books?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&source=hp&q=unsimulated%20sex%20mainstream%20films&cf=all&sa=N&tab=np Google Books results and some http://scholar.google.com/scholar?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&source=hp&q=unsimulated%20sex%20mainstream%20films&cf=all&sa=N&tab=ps Google Scholar results. At least some of these speak to the phenomenon of including real sex in mainstream films (many to do with the film ''Shortbus'' it appears) and if there is a question regarding an individual film then independent sourcing for the specific film can be sought (or the film can, you know, be ''watched'' since primary sourcing is considered |reliable for describing what it happening in a film).  |Wikipedia is not censored
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:CENSORED)

Comment: This article, aside from the notability of the subject and its (the subject's) possible significance when viewed within the context of the history of cinema, is related to and may have a bearing on other Wikipedia articles, including but not limited to Nudity in film, Sex in film, and Golden Age of Porn|Porno Chic.  While some elements of the article may be in need of better sourcing, and indeed of a good style guide, that is an argument for better and more consistent editing practices, not for deletion.  A willingness on the part of the editors to collaborate and cooperate and a little bit of diligence and initiative are all that is really needed.  Well, we also need to have an end to the sort of vandalism which the article has suffered from recently.  While the removal of information which may be in violation of  is understandable, the removal of material which an editor considers to be inadequately sourced, or even unsourced, is another thing.  It has been standard practice on Wikipedia for articles (or information within an article) which require citations and references to be tagged accordingly, not simply deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: I see no reason why a sourced list should not exist. I see a lot of  and a vague deletion rationale "it would be a crime to hire people to have sex" completely unsourced, and with the weasel qualifier "(in most places)".  Tell me, in which countries is it a crime to hire actors to have sex?, how can they ever make porn movies
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:DONTLIKEIT)

Comment: This article is |original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: A notable topic, covered in reliable sources. Meets  and . It doesn't look like  is an issue, given the sufficient sourcing. Note that  is ''not'' a valid reason for deletion. Possibly rename, per above
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:A||WP:BLP||WP:IDL)