Deletion of List of actresses in the MILF porn genre

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:RS)

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  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OSE)