Deletion of Incest pornography

Comment: there are |reliable sources out there, with substantial enough coverage to demonstrate |notability. There is a mention http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=cache:PtHuws2MmRUJ:www.bishopireton.org/faculty/GAVINW/HomepageGavin_files/Pornography/Pornography%27s%2520effect%2520on%2520children%2520and%2520adults.doc+%22incest+porn+OR+pornography%22 here. There is a section in http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1xgnAQAACAAJ&dq=%22Men+Confront+Pornography%22&ei=YO8vSJH-EKLsygS53oXLAw this book called "Incest Pornography and the Problem of Fantasy", would be useful if anyone has access to it. It is quoted http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dwwO1P2ftbcC&pg=PA195&dq=%22incest+porn+OR+pornography%22&ei=0-wvSIysAZHcywTrydnXAw&sig=WS6Kdus80VhFmOvVJovjsF9y_gY here. There is more coverage in http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=z6Mn0zcYfusC&pg=PA72&dq=%22incest+porn+OR+pornography%22&ei=0-wvSIysAZHcywTrydnXAw&sig=gVdr5I5iOrwj1EC_kgKXx0xFXX8 this book. Couple of news stories: http://www.courttv.com/trials/posey/012506_ctv.html, http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=15&art_id=iol1205413910264I522, http://sadlynormal.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/oh-toledo-mom-declared-fit-for-trial-on-incest-charge/. Some of these may seem somewhat trivial in their coverage, but I think that taken together, there is enough to demonstrated notability. There may be more coverage on the web, but inevitably, it is hard to search for as you have to wade through literally millions of porn sites. I think there could be a good little article there about the connection with incest, child pornography and child abuse. I would potentially support a merge, but as far as I can see, Pornography would not be a great destination because it does not seem to give much attention to any of the sub-genres beyond listing them. I think that it would also take focus away from the child porn / abuse aspect, giving |undue weight to the hot twin-on-twin action. Similarly, it could be merged to child pornography, but then it may unduly swing the focus the other way
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N||WP:UNDUE)

Comment: Since I specifically ''haven't'' given any reason for outright deletion in the nom and this is a procedural nom to determine if there's consensus to delete, merge or keep, any particular reasoning behind the deletion !vote? Not saying it's not a viable choice, but you need better deletion grounds than 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: I've taken a look at this one; the majority of redlinks in this article lead to articles deleted because of lack of notability; I've nominated the articles on the two blue linked twins because they don't meet  either.  At best, this might be worth a line or two in Pornographic film, but none of the names mentioned should be carried over. The article itself is completely unreferenced, and the external link leads to an article in a source of questionable reliability (perhaps someone from Wikiproject Porn could discuss
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PORNBIO)