Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lolita pornography
Article has been tagged unreferenced since 2006. Google search found only one decent possible reference: [1]. The reference only makes passing mention of "lolita porn." And there is already an article "Lolita--term" in which Lolita porn is mentioned: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita_(term)]. I think mention of "Lolita porn" in "Lolita-term" is more than enough, and we do not need a whole article on this. -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Merge. I agree. The porn topic is pretty closely tied in with the base term. I don't see a need for a separate article. It's also an unlikely search term as someone looking for information on this topic would either go straight to lolita or the child p. article. 23skidoo (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Sourceless, original research. The verifiable information here is not of sufficient volume to justify an article separate from the term Lolita. Nick Graves (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect as likely search term. Nominator probably should have brought this up on the talk page if it already wasn't; as a likely search term for Lolita/child porn, it should redirect there and merge any good content. Celarnor Talk to me 23:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment No one has ever posted anything on the talkpage of this article; it is completely empty.-PetraSchelm (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, original research, neologism. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per KleenupKrew. Edison (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - seems like original research to me. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete original research, neogloism. --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect per Celarnor...I see no reason to delete a possible search term and some content may be salvageable. Markovich292 05:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)