Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of adult animated films
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
— [[User talk:Ravenswing|''' '' Ravenswing '' ''' ]], 07:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NOR (Wikipedia:No original research)