post #290361: Not needed.
post #233264: Not explicit, though only just barely. More concerning is the bad line of symmetry down the torso; it's as if the artist forgot the anatomy he was using below the navel.
post #223134: Not explicit, and arguably not loli.
post #160945: Not explicit.
post #142774: Seriously? With boobs like that? No.
post #98588: No. Also, I have no idea why it suddenly rated it E when I removed the tag. Fixed on both counts.
post #98285, post #88633: Closer, but still not enough for the tag. One of the child posts is, though.
post #95632: From what little is clearly discernible, not explicit.
post #94172: Not explicit. Neither was its parent. Flagged this one due to jpeg artifacts + duplicate.
post #93191: The cameltoe makes this a bit questionable, but it's not detailed enough to tag it.
post #82104: Not detailed enough, it's just a pantyshot.
post #63640: ...Why are there so many of this image? I move to keep the highest-res version (post #45996) and nuke the rest.
post #60912: Not even close.
post #49938: No.
post #45681: Teasing, but too un-detailed to be anything more than a pantyshot.
post #32955: see my call on this duplicate's kin.
post #25391: Barely even a pantyshot, at that.
post #14564: A little closer to the line, here. The panties are down, but we can't see any action, nor any fluids. For that matter, this pic makes it dubious whether or not she's a loli, rather than a thin sixteen-year-old in cutesy clothes. I'd say no.
post #10243: Pantyshot, and a non-explicit one. No.
post #6806: Not even close.
post #2156: Nothing shown, nothing suggested, no tag needed.
Yeah, a lot of these were probably tagged quite a bit before we came to a loose consensus on what is and is not loli for Danbooru's purposes.