Deletion of Pederastic filmography

Comment: The very act of compiling a list of things which fall into no citable category is, of itself, original research.  Please be careful not to confuse "what is obvious" with "what is citable".  Many things are obvious, but, without citations that meet , such things are |original research.  At the point where you can deliver citations which show that it is valid to have such an article at all, the discussion changes from "keep/delete" into one about whether an item referred to inside the article meets the criteria for inclusion.  At present we are discussing the deletion of the article.  I do not find  your arguments for keeing it persuasive
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:OR)

Comment: Original research - fails .  Fails  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: I fear you misunderstand the use of citations.  In this article the citation, should the article survive, is to prove from a source meeting  that the item belongs in or adds value to this article.  Thus a citation within an article hyperlinked from this article, while interesting, is irrelevant.  But the problem is that ''this article'' requires citations in order to prove that it is, itself, a valid article.  That is an entirely different discussion from a discussion about the nitty gritty of the content
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)