Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pornographic subgenres


 * 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. Can be userfied if somebody really wants to try to improve it.  Sandstein  18:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

List of pornographic subgenres

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The list does not make clear the concept of subgenre, mixing confusingly categories that look like tags from pornographic sites. Much of the article does not feature RS coverage (for 10 years) and looks like copy paste from websites of the genre. Guilherme Burn (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Fancruft that has never been, and will likely never be, sourced. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:TNT. A large portion of the list is original research, while the rest is already in Category:Pornography by genre. An encyclopedic list might be able to be created, but it's clear that it requires a full rewrite with reliable sources.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep AfD is not clean-up. Like Zxcvbnm said, an encyclopaedic list can be created. Instead of deleting the article, first we should try to improve it. — usernamekiran (talk)  19:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I certainly would not object to Draftification if you are willing to fully revamp the article. But keeping it doesn't guarantee that anything will be done; it has a high chance of returning to the status quo of the last 10 years of being ignored by editors.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:04, 29 May 2018 (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.