Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lolita pornography

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 delete - Nabla (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
• Delete. Unsourced character of article indicates original research. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails all three: WP:OR, WP:N, WP:V. There are no references on the page not because none have been added, but because none can be found. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2008 (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.