Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eroart

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eroart

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

seems to be based entirely on primary (and non-reliable) sources. seems like a neologism that never went anywhere. Insert CleverPhrase Here 06:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - like nom, I can't find anything that looks reliable either. Maybe others can do better, but this does look like a failed neologism. Or it may just be a little too soon to tell. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete, author of term is marginally notable, mostly a local phenom, his writings are not cited by others.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEO applies here. I don't see any secondary sources analysing this term, not is there any widespread usage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.