Yes your logic is clear GNG however is easily interpreted in a range of ways take Significant coverage this depends on context and if I were a deletionist I would push this point to claim almost any pornrelated source were either insignificant or unreliable For example the Adam Gay Video Directory has previously been challenged as a source even though it is the most definitive publication in the field and cited by multiple academic books and articles It seems a great pity that so much effort is being used to force a hard and probably poor interpretation of BLP via PORNBIO to delete articles about early erotic actors rather than finding ways of presenting such information in an encyclopedic fashion I cannot interpret recent actions other than a prejudicial distaste for the subject of pornography driving hardline interpretation of the guidance Unfortunately it does appear that there are a large number of admins without experience of building consensus rather than assuming that they embody it