RN
Start with the word in the title, because it is the reason this page needed rewriting more than anything else in it.
Advocacy organisations representing people with dwarfism have asked for decades that the term be retired. It carries a specific history — the exhibition of people with dwarfism as attractions, sold as curiosities to a paying audience — and that history is the point of the objection. The medical term is dwarfism, and it covers a group of distinct conditions rather than one. The general preference is little people, or simply people, with the condition mentioned only when it is actually relevant.
The URL of this page keeps its original wording because links point at it. Nothing else here does.
Why there is no list
The version this replaces named eight performers and attached details to each: dates and places of birth, a claimed legal name, counts of films appeared in, studios worked with, and descriptions of their bodies and of what they did on camera.
None of it was sourced, and none of it could be established now. In a niche this small, performers frequently work under several stage names across different companies, credits are inconsistent, and material gets recirculated on aggregators with the crediting stripped out — so a name attached to a clip is weak evidence of anything. Beyond the accuracy problem there is a simpler one: much of what was asserted was private information about identifiable individuals, and repeating an unsourced claim about someone's body or sexual history is not made acceptable by the fact that they once worked in adult film.
A popularity ranking is also the wrong object even where it is accurate. It records one writer's impression on one day in 2018. Careers continued, ended, or were never as the list described them, and the list itself does not know which.
What the category actually is
Dwarfism is a group of medical conditions, of which achondroplasia is the most common. Short stature is one feature among several, and the conditions differ from one another in ways that matter medically and not at all to how the genre is marketed.
That last part is the honest description of the category. This is a niche organised around a physical characteristic, sold on the basis of contrast, and the marketing language reflects that — the framing is novelty, and the performer is positioned as the spectacle rather than as a performer. It is the same structural logic as a good deal of body-based categorisation in adult film, and it is more overt here than in most.
Noting that is not an argument against anyone's work. Adults perform in it, and the objection worth making is to the framing rather than to the people inside it. But it does explain why writing about this niche skews so heavily toward the gawking register, and why a rewrite that simply produced a politer list would have missed what was wrong with the original.
Finding work rather than lists
If you came here looking for specific performers, a performer database is the tool that actually answers the question. Databases index by release across companies, which is the only view that shows a career rather than one studio's slice of it, and they carry aliases — which matters enormously in a niche where a single performer may appear under three or four names.
That approach also gets you crediting, which a compilation upload will not, and crediting is the difference between finding a performer's work and finding a clip that happens to feature them.
For browsing by category rather than by name, the fetish section is where this material tends to sit in the directory's taxonomy. It is a genre listing, not a recommendation of the framing described above.
The short version
The article that used to be here was a list of real people, described in terms they did not choose, on the basis of facts nobody checked. Removing it was the correct outcome, and replacing it with a shorter and more careful list would not have been.