Deletion of Sapphicerotica

Comment: per  and ; no significant coverage in '''reliable''' external sources.  And it's porncruft
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: per  and .  In fact this is one of the most notable sites (and spreader of teaser pages to promote the subscription website) in its niche, but until sources meeting WP standards provide some feature coverage, it's just another not-noted-enough special-interest thingy.  At some point perhaps we should agree on Adult Video News or some other source to be considered "authoritative" since no formal peer review is likely to evolve in that field.  The verifiability standards do recognize that some areas of encyclopedic knowledge are open to more formal rigor than others.  As Dbtfz and others have noted, there are particularly unreliable sources and traffic statistics in the field of online, uh, figure art
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)