Deletion of List of Japanese sex terms

Comment: per official Wikipedia policy: |Wikipedia is not a dictionary.Note that the list is also rather inaccurate. It might be better titled List of random Japanese words that some otaku think might sometimes be associated with sex. How the hell are "bishōjo" and "bishōnen" ''sex terms''?  (And in what parallel universe does anyone use the word "bishōjo" by itself to refer to eroge?)  How is "dōjin" a ''sex term'', given that dojin works are no more exclusively pornographic than Western vanity publications are? &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: I fail to see any merit in this ever-growing list of foreign language sex-slang. It fails what Wiki is |not, so I'm suprised it's managed to stay up for so long. At best this article is an unverifiable list of foreign language slang with minimal use as any kind of reference point, and at worse it's just acting as a bulletin board for people to post titillating rude words from Japan
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per |WP not a dictionary
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: How on God's green earth can you claim this is encyclopedic''??! It does NOT meet . It is NOT VERIFIABLE in that there are no SOURCES. Bishōjo has no sources. Futanari is not sourced. Image club is just totally made up. I would '''strongly''' suggest that the people voting keep THINK about what they are voting to keep. There are some terms in the list that are legit, but the majority of list is an unsourced list of mostly unsourced terms that , if they belong ANYWHERE, belong on the Japanese Wikipedia. Please also look up in the dictionary the definition of ''encyclopedia''. Wikipedia is not toilet paper
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP: NOT)

Comment: and transwiki to Wiktionary, if they want it. It's not sourced and |Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The cleaned up version of the page is just as invalid as the full version (which would have been better material for Wiktionary.) The cleaned up version consists of a list of links to other articles in the project.  There's no need for that. Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability|Inclusion of other articles is not an indicator of notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)