Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of actresses in the MILF porn genre
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
— User:Schizombie, 18:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:BEFORE (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion)