Deletion of List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films

Comment: Quoting myself from the article's talk page days ago: "About notability, this list clearly passes  the otability#Stand-alone_lists test (eg., found in five minutes, http://www.cnbc.com/id/45974590#. CNBC, http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-derbyshire-19873365 BBC, http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Glqd39q4AvgJ:https://movies.yahoo.com/news/porn-stars-mainstream-while-hollywood-goes-porn-003100247.html+&cd=19&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=it&client=firefox-a Yahoo Movies, http://www.backstage.com/news/porn-goes-mainstream/ Backstage Magazine, http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/14/showbiz/porn-stars-mainstream/ CNN, http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/jan/12/porn-and-pop-culture-merge-mainstream-still-diffic/ Las Vegas Sun)". Then, an intersection which is well-noted in reliable sources. The examples made by the nominator just reflect his bad faith, why he didn't mentioned Sasha Grey starring in Steven Soderbergh's ''The Girlfriend Experience''http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2009/apr/29/steven-soderbergh-the-girlfriend-experience-sasha-grey or James Deen starring in Paul Schrader's ''The Canyons (film)|The Canyons''http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/10825747/Is-James-Deen-the-acceptable-face-of-porn.html  or Ron Jeremy in a bunch of titles?? Finally, the comparison between adult actors in non-porn films and a ''list of comedy film actors who have appeared in westerns'' is just laughable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Cavarrone has provided RS establishing GNG and the template at the article clearly states it is undergoing a major edit, so with a little rehabilitation, it should be kept. As to cyclopia's point about the Afd, I agree as well. Anytime the nominator is not able to provide reasoning based on policies and guidelines, but rather questions and comments like ''Why should we care'' and ''whether we should give two hoots about it one way or another'' and ''We don't have'', it just smacks of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: as being an intersection not noted in reliable sources,and, at best, weakly sourced to the IMDB which does not meet 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)