Deletion of List of adult animated films

Comment: per nom and other delete !votes above, and per . We should not have lists of films by genres
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCATALOGUE)

Comment: Is there the collective will to bring this list into compliance with  by providing sources establishing the films as "adult" and deleting the entries for which sources can't (or won't) be provided...and maintain the list going forward? If so, then maybe this is salvageable; if not, then it probably should be deleted. In my experience, there are too many editors who are happy to create and add to list articles who then balk at having to provide citations. Alternately, they're ignorant of policy regarding such things
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:LISTVERIFY)

Comment: I admit that I stared at this for a long time. For some reason I kept thinking adult animated film: gutter... Anyway the list passes  as it aides in navigation and information. One editor has stated that we have a hurdle of determining whether the items are adult/young adult. - is easily overcome with editing. I also do not believe we have original research here...we have a list
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: Can these issues be fixed through normal editing per 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Well, how about we go with -- drum roll please -- the actual grounds of the nomination?  That the article is poorly named given the plurality of readers who would absolutely expect this to be about pornography is a content issue that is outside the scope of AfD.  That this list consist entirely of |original research, would any keep proponents care to address that?  That fewer than one film out of thirty on this list is sourced at ''all'' (never mind sources that are reliable, independent and support the characterization of the film as "adult"), would any keep proponents care to address that?  Honestly, I don't see a single valid ground to keep this article having been proffered: that there is an article on adult animation is nice, but has nothing to do with that THIS article is almost entirely unsourced and entirely consists of original research.  (That aside, no, we should ''not'' keep this pending sourcing.  That might be -- barely -- a valid concern for a new article, but this list article is nearly four years old.  If no one is willing to put the effort into sourcing it, it should not be a Wikipedia article until someone is
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: Here's the thing. Lists of films in a genre are absolutely and unambiguously acceptable stand-alone articles. In fact, I'd dare say that if there are enough sources to have an article about a genre, it's quite likely that we can sustain a list (even a navigational list) of films in that genre. But this isn't about a genre; it's about an audience. That's a much slipperier distinction to source. Is it about intention? With whom it was popular? Marketing? Subject matter? There's nothing consistent here except for "geared towards adults" and even then the main article adds "or adolescents" (?!). Sometimes a film is explicitly made for children or for adults, but most of the time (especially these days) it's blurry, and it also changes over time. I ultimately don't have faith that this can work per . &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:SALAT)