Deletion of Legality of bestiality by country or territory

Comment: In principle I'm ok with an article existing at Legality of bestiality by country or territory, but the problems with this article are too deep to fix.  applies. &#32
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: per Beeblebrox and others. There's no need to debate on whether it is 'dubious' or bad faith (to be fair moral arguments seem to hurt the delete cause more than it helps), it's just pure, plain  and it's not in a good enough state to be salvaged
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: per Beeblebrox. The sourcing of this article is utterly abysmal. For example, it uses, as the only source for bestiality supposedly being legal in four African countries (Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Madagascar, Mozambique), an article on "Animal welfare in OIE member countries & territories in the SADC region" https://web.archive.org/web/20190130053304/http://www.rr-africa.oie.int/docspdf/en/2011/Animal_Welfare_Summary.pdf in which neither the word 'Bestiality' nor 'zoophilia' can be found at all. An article which appears not to even discuss the subject. Instead, whoever cited this source seems to think that because said countries do not (or did not, according to the cited source) have specific animal welfare legislation, bestiality must be legal. This dubious bit of  clearly doesn't stand a moments thought, given the history of laws against such sexual acts in many cultures, which have frequently been motivated by concerns over human morality, and on outlawing 'unnatural' sexuality (as defined by the relevant cultural norms) rather than over any concern for the animal concerned. Absence of specific animal welfare legislation simply cannot be taken to be evidence for the legality of anything. To assert otherwise is just plain idiotic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: As per nominator, appears to have consisted largely of |original research since 2006.  Yuck
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: per Beeblebrox. , , etc
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIRECTORY||WP:NOTTRAVEL)

Comment: and kudos to Beeblebrox for digging into the references and the way they are being used.  applies as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTADVOCACY)