Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African-American pornographic actors


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

List of African-American pornographic actors

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unsourced porno-trivia of no serious value. Also potential problems in that almost all the people the list included are living persons. Frank Fascarelli (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * has been blocked for block evasion. However, because another user favours deletion, this discussion cannot be closed as speedy keep. —C.Fred (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As far as I know, every fact in the table is supported by sources in the individuals' Wikipedia biographies. People without Wikipedia articles are routinely removed. I fail to see what vague "potential problems" this list presents with respect to BLP. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk
 * convert to a category Facts need to be referenced where they are given. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Categories suck, list provide far more information. And you could easily copy over the reference links from the main article about the awards they won and anything else lisetd.   D r e a m Focus  04:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia is a fucking encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia of fucking. Time to clean house. Carrite (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Silver  seren C 03:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, WP:ITSHOULDN'TBEINANENCYCLOPEDIA. Porn is swell. There is a time and a place for everything. This is neither. Carrite (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So, your argument is still "This is porn or benefits porn in some manner and shouldn't be in an encyclopedia"? Silver  seren C 16:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I see no reason for this list to be deleted. It is comprehensive and has only notable (people who have a Wikipedia article) listed, though red-linked people are still allowed on such lists. The list can easily be made to satisfy WP:NLIST by adding references taken from the articles of the subjects. All in all, the list satisfies the requirements of lists on Wikipedia. Silver  seren C 04:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep These people have their own articles. If they don't mind having an article about their porn careers, I doubt they'll complain about being on a list linking them to it.  The list aids in navigation.   D r e a m Focus  04:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Why is this even listed??? Whose Your Guy (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems like it would be better as a category. LiteralKa (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, why is the Hispanic article a red link? LiteralKa (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Because that article was deleted recently. I removed the redlink. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Categories are not a suitable mechanism for reading and browsing for you average Wikipedia. They are ugly and don't provide any detail for the reader to latch onto. Lists are much nicer in this contex. The article is fine. Keep it. scope_creep (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems like it would be better in a category. Also poses potential BLP problems. And why isn't MOntana Fishburne on the list? Freakshownerd (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The bigger question is why does Montana Fishburne even HAVE an article in the first place? Taking WP:NOTINHERITED into account, the existing sources don't really satisfy my notability parameters.  Whose Your Guy (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I think it would be a trivial matter to show evidence that people watch pornography based on the appearance of the performers. this is a list whose criteria is both easily defined and relevant to the subject matter. any blp issues are as with any lists: either be really sure the main article shows a reliable source, or we go totally anal (i know, but thats the correct term for this) and have refs on this page for each performer, showing them to be african american and a porn star (very few lists of people do this, but its ultimately required, even if the main article shows it). Making it a category doesnt avoid the blp issues either. we have lots of articles which categorize people, as, say, gay (eg Thorn Kief Hillsbery), without one word in the article stating it (it may be obvious in some cases, but we still have to spell it out). of course, a photo sort of confirms it for some performers, but we dont want to rely on images as a source for data if possible.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I have no ontological opposition to it, presuming it's sourced, etc. (which is seemingly the case)The Rhymesmith (talk) 05:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by BarraganLL (talk • contribs) 15:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.