Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incest in popular culture (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. Numerically, I counted 18 Delete, 13 Keep, 1 Move. The raw count might have been just barely enough to justify a Delete outcome, but looking at the arguments to delete, I saw quite a few (nine, as I count them now) which were essentially, ''The topic is fine, but the article is badly written. This would work better if rewritten as prose, under a title such as Incest in Literature''. Overall, I found those to be weak arguments for deletion. Some people pointed out that the previous AfD (seven years ago!) resulted in, essentially, Keep, but fix, and in all that time, nobody has fixed, so we should declare this a lost cause. Others countered that there are no deadlines.

For what it's worth, here's my collection of what I thought were the most significant sound bites. Many of these may be munged beyond recognition, but assembling this list helped me organize my thoughts, so I figured it's worth preserving (note: don't count the sound bites and expect them to match my tally above; they don't).


 * Delete: Little referencing, mostly fails RS. Fails V OR N and GNG.
 * Delete: Topic has merit; but list is completely out of control.
 * Delete: Blow up and start again
 * Delete: Indescriminate, no clear definition of "popular culture"
 * Delete: Time to blow it up.
 * Delete: Unsourced trivia. Focus is on Anglo-American culture.
 * Delete: per WP:IINFO
 * Delete: Laundry list, should convert to prose.
 * Delete: Rewrite in prose with some coherent vision.
 * Delete: per WP:INDISCRIMINATE
 * Delete: Unencyclopedic, OR, indiscriminate.
 * Delete: Most are notable (blue links) but not in context. WP:COATRACK
 * Delete: Unencyclopedic way to present information, but subject is notable
 * Delete: Worthy subject, bad article.
 * Delete: Mishmash of every mention in popular media.
 * Delete: Unsalvageable in it's current format.
 * Delete: WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:TNT, no prejudice for recreation as Incest in Literature.


 * Move to "Incest in fiction", remove mention of record albums. Subject has been written about by classic Greek playwrights, Faulkner, discussed in college literature classes, thus not trivial


 * Keep: Really interesting article.
 * Keep: The topic is quite notable as there are numerous books about it.
 * Keep: Notable subject, needs better sourcing, convert to prose.
 * Keep: Obviously notable and legitimate subject, fix what's broken.
 * Keep: Topic is notable, but trim trivial/unreferenced material.
 * Keep: Notable, legit subject
 * Keep: AfD is not for cleanup.
 * Keep: "Can't vote to keep unless you fix it yourself", not a valid reason to delete
 * Keep: So many sources on the page

-- RoySmith (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Incest in popular culture
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

What little referencing there is is not directly related to "in popular culture" and mostly fails RS anyway. This leaves us with a massive screed of synthesis and OR masquerading as an encyclopdia article. Fails V OR N and GNG Spartaz Humbug! 05:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Really interesting article. Just made a small contribution myself. Course it needs to be taken in hand. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's not a good rationale for keeping. See WP:INTERESTING. —  Scott  •  talk  11:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I meant interesting in the sense it makes no mention of Ovid's Byblis and Myrrha narratives per WP:CLUE. I just think that's a real sign of class in a scholarly article devoted to incest in erotic fiction and the article should be kept for that reason alone. If anyone does care to make the relevant edits however, I'll be the first back with a Delete recommendation on the grounds it's a load of shite. Can't be fairer than that. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is quite notable as there are numerous books about it. Here's a selection:
 * Close Relationships: Incest and Inbreeding in Classical Arabic Literature
 * Nature's Ban: Women's Incest Literature
 * Incest and the Literary Imagination
 * The Politics of Survivorship: Incest, Women's Literature, and Feminist Theory
 * Everybody's Family Romance: Reading Incest in Neoliberal America
 * Violation of Taboo: Incest in the Great Literature of the Past and Present
 * ''Forbidden Fruit: a study of the incest theme in erotic literature
 * Patriarchy and Incest from Shakespeare to Joyce
 * Incest and the English Novel, 1684-1814
 * Accidental Incest, Filial Cannibalism, & Other Peculiar Encounters in Late Imperial Chinese Literature
 * The German Bildungsroman: Incest and Inheritance
 * Andrew (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 *  Keep  Delete The referencing certainly needs to be improved but this is a notable topic given the number of academic texts that have been written on the subject. It would be better rewritten as prose but I fear that is an almost impossible task to carry out given the diversity of the material. Philg88 ♦talk 10:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Change to delete. A rewrite is impossible given the size of the article and the referencing required. Tearing it down and starting again seems the only way forward. Philg88 ♦talk 18:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, for the reasons given by Spartaz. The issue here is not that the topic itself is without merit; clearly it has some. The issue is that this list is completely out of control. Look at the first AfD and you'll see that it has been completely out of control for at least seven years, meaning that all the "keep but tidy up" votes from back then were absolutely pointless, and any similar votes this time around will be equally pointless. When this article was nominated for deletion in July 2007, it was 43 KB in size. How big is it now? 159 KB. If efforts to reform the list failed - and they did, otherwise we wouldn't be here - when it was literally a quarter of the size it is today, who in their right mind would think that anything can be done about it now? It's time to face the fact that there is no way to rescue this article. None. It needs to be burned to the ground and started again, using sources of the type listed above by Andrew. —  Scott  •  talk  11:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added Transgressive fiction to the See also section, which I expect is the kind of heavy duty article you would like to see the article being rewritten as. At present Incest in fiction redirects to the article (i.e. this one under discussion here). It seems to me there's scope to write an article of the sort you would like to see under that article name. What proportion of Wikipedia could reasonably be called "popular"? Getting on for half or more I would say. Like it or not, that's just the way it is, and I don't have any problem with it, nor with these "in popular culture" articles in general. So long as notability is established in the lead and reliable sources are quoted for the material, I don't see what the issue is. The article doesn't need rewriting. Granted it needs improvement to reach Wikipedia standards, but that can be achieved with editing WP:SOFIXIT. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What part of "nobody has fixed the grotesque problems with this article in the seven years since it survived AfD on the condition of being fixed, during which time it has quadrupled in size" is proving difficult to understand? —  Scott  •  talk  19:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a personal attack. You are patronising me and saying I'm stupid, and that's especially irritating when what you say about the last AfD is simply not true: the result was simply "The result was Keep", a reflection of the roughly 2:1 support for the article, whatever its defects. For what it's worth I do get the points raised here, but they were raised before and nothing has really changed except perhaps the contributions from overseers at Jimbo's Talk page. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As an "in popular culture" article, this article is dependent upon a clear definition of what is and is not part of popular culture.  Unfortunately popular culture is a dynamic and highly subjective entity that forces editors to employ some form of "I know it when I see it" test to determine what is or is not part of popular culture.  This means that inclusion of items into the list is either based upon some form of original research or else is virtually unbounded due to any drive-by editor with an idiosyncratic view point being able to add their personal favorite to the list.  --Allen3 talk 12:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Time to blow it up.  This is a blatant TV Tropes article, and there's almost nothing salvageable.  It would be better to delete it and start over again from scratch.  Even if it's kept, it's going to require a complete rewrite, so I don't really see the point in keeping it.  For one thing, deletion would reduce the risk of someone edit warring to keep in all that original research under the argument that "it's useful" or "it's interesting". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - As above it is certainly a notable subject, Just needs better sourcing and perhaps prosing?. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  14:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you volunteering to find sources for each of the 450+ items in this list? Because if you're not, we're far beyond the point of "somebody can fix it". —  Scott  •  talk  17:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope .... On that note changed to Delete .... Probably should'nt !vote per ITSINTERESTING!, As much as it is interesting I don't see the list being sourced anytime this year ... or 5 years later sadly!. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  18:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Beatles' influence on popular culture likewise consists of hundreds of snippets of information and has just 22 citations. Of course you wouldn't have the slightest chance of getting that article deleted, although the arguments you cite here are just as valid there. In reality there's no need to cite most of the assertions here, verifiability is easily accomplished simply by turning to the work cited (a review perhaps, or its own wiki article) and checking that what is asserted for it is matter of fact true. Just as there is a genuinely encyclopaedic article for the Beatles, so is there scope for a genuinely encyclopaedic article for Incest in Fiction. Since you're proposing a total re-write, why not just write it under that article name and allow this one to coexist? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Various things wrong here. Firstly, with the Beatles example you've just moved from an INTERESTING argument to an OTHERSTUFF argument. Secondly, I am not proposing a total re-write. I am proposing a total re-write preceded by the complete removal of this article as it currently exists. In other words, that the current state of this article should not be tolerated any further. Thirdly, as to verifiability - as points out in the, lists of this sort typically rely on editors making "I know it when I see it" determinations instead of providing sources, which is a recipe for disaster of the precise sort demonstrated by the parlous state of this article. —  Scott  •  talk  19:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm proposing a total re-write of the article Incest in fiction which currently redirects here, while allowing the current article to coexist. What's "wrong" with that? We just happen to differ. Are you say it's wrong to have a differing opinion from you? I don't really follow. There's already a scholarly article Transgressive fiction about this kind of fiction. If you want to produce a more scholarly account of incest in fiction in particular then write it. It's plain from the way this article was introduced at Jimbo's Talk page that you think the article is a load of shite, but it was introduced in the first place as an example of the kind of popular article that a group of people who congregate at Jimbo's page think shouldn't be tolerated on their encyclopaedia. Merely to dissent there is to put yourself forward for an inquisition as happened to me yesterday evening, and that's elitism. That's the agenda and I don't want this project to degenerate into elitism. I think people voting here who allow themselves to be influenced by your view of what's right and wrong should be aware of the agenda behind it. As for INTERESTING reread my satire at the top introducing all this. Do you think perhaps that happens to you quite a lot for some reason or other? The addition I made to this article (Edith Wharton's Beatrice Palmato) could not be more scholarly, not its citation (The New Yorker) more impeccable, and I can write the kind of article you would wish to see here in my sleep (conscious of a degree of ridicule given the subject matter). Take your agenda somewhere else please and stop patronising us. Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh please, please, do enlighten "us" (who's that again?) about the true nature of my agenda. After that, why don't you go and produce that article you're dangling over us, oh great writer of our times, since it's so easy for you? Because, you know, you wouldn't want us to think that you're full of hot air. —  Scott  •  talk  18:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Us" would be we happy band of brothers and sister gathered together here (erm ... in common cause) to improve this article. My core editing area is the visual arts. I could do fiction, but I don't really fancy doing an article on "incest in fiction". I've said everything I've wanted to say here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Largely unsourced compendium of trivia. This begs the question: incest in whose "popular culture" — this deal almost exclusively with the Anglo-American setting, omitting about 95% of the world. Unencylopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 *  Comment , either prune extensively and keep or delete without prejudice for a restart from fresh are ok. According to Andrew Davidson's list above, which is no surprise at all, the subject is most likely notable and verifiable. But this article is not it, this one is a mostly indiscriminate list of "xxx in yyy". So, either prune the list, and keep and expand the intro, or delete with no prejudice to recreation, given there is not much of an intro to start with. - Nabla (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * PS: changing from 'comment' to 'delete', after reading on. If kept it shoud be retargeted to Incest in Literature, and so on. - Nabla (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:IINFO. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and recreate as a proper, prose-based article. I agree with many that this article at present is nothing but a laundry list of trivia, failing many of the policies and guidelines noted in the opening statement.  However, as Andrew notes with his list of books, the topic itself appears to be notable.  Also:, , , .  Looks like a classic case of blow-it-up-and-rebuild. Resolute 20:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep In the 2007 AFD I said "There is sufficient scholarly commentary on the subject of this article to allow the present content to be polished into a fine article. As is, it could use some polishing. "Incest in fiction" might be a better article name, and remove any or discussion of record albums. A taboo subject written about by classic Greek playwrights and Faulkner certainly is not trivial. Do not let unreasoned hatred of the words "in popular culture" remove a topic covered in college literature classes." The topic of incest in fiction is itself notable as shown by the secondary sources listed by Andrew above. "Delete it and rewrite it?" Nope, since it will inevitably have a listing of works featuring incest. Deletion is not part of the editing process. We are not "on deadline," so an article does not have to be perfect by some arbitrary date.  . Secondary sources exist such as some of the ones Andrew listed  can be used to reference examples mentioned in the article.  Edison (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." There is nothing remotely encyclopaedic about a random contributor-complied list of supposed 'examples' of incest in popular culture. If an article on the subject is merited at all, it is one exclusively based on sources which analyse the topic in detail - and nothing in the present article remotely fits that description. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have many open-ended lists.  The "unsourced" entries are sourced to the works referenced, and simply clicking on their links will generally turn up more specifics.  I'm tired of Wikipedia being manipulated to only include things people happen to like the mention of. Wnt (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Things people happen to like: good articles. Things people happen to dislike: hundreds of kilobytes of unreferenced crap. Hope that helps! —  Scott  •  talk  18:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per 's rationale in particular; we do no favors to the state of knowledge when we wipe out lengthy materials on the off chance that someone might eventually write something else. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Edison and Arxiloxos -- the subject is most certainly notable and deleting it is not the right way to fix any problems the article may have. Adamh4 (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - the topic is definitely notable, but an article such as Incest in literature might be more appropriate. As it stands, this article has few merits, and would probably be best blown up. Simply adding a reference for each item still would not be enough, it has to be rewritten in prose with some coherent vision. Jamesx12345 21:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Funny enough, I was just looking up Incest in literature and saw that it does not exist. This is not an article elaborating on incest in popular culture: why it is such a widespread topic, what kind of ideas are conveyed by it, what its expected effects are. It is a list. As a list it creates a connection between, for instance, Der Ring des Nibelungen and Fatal Frame IV: Mask of the Lunar Eclipse: What do they have in common? Right, they contain an example of an incestuous relationship. That's no difference to an article Alfred in popular culture of all works that happen to name one of their characters Alfred, and that's about the prime example of bad ideas for lists. Der Ring des Nibelungen and Fatal Frame IV: Mask of the Lunar Eclipse have nothing in common, and no secondary source can be found to claim they have. The list is thus unencyclopedic, original research, and indiscriminate. It should be deleted. --Pgallert (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellently put. —  Scott  •  talk  22:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is obviously notable and legitimate subject that deserves a separate page. Yes, some parts of content are problematic. So what? Fix it. My very best wishes (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Cut down, but not delete: The topic is a notable one, the problem that we currently have is that the page has too much trivial and unreferenced material. The problematic material should be removed in accordance with WP:V, however article deletion is not the solution, and we shouldn't delete the entire page due to a content issue. Stubbify the page if necessary, build the article up from scratch, and ensure that additions are properly sourced. -- benlisquare T•C•E 10:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The administrator that closes this debate needs to bear in mind, when assessing the comments that say "fix it", how nothing at all happened seven years ago when the first AfD closed as "keep" on the basis of identical comments. Likewise, the people posting those comments need to back them up with some explanation of just who's going to be doing that fixing, because I sure don't see anyone here volunteering to do it themselves. —  Scott  •  talk  10:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no deadline.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice straw man, but nobody is suggesting there is a deadline. —  Scott  •  talk  12:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just you.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not. You clearly haven't understood anything I or the other "delete" voters have been saying here. —  Scott  •  talk  13:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I have. I suggest you read WP:AGF, as you are lacking.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. It's your reading comprehension skills that I'm bringing into question, not your good faith. —  Scott  •  talk  14:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I have read it. Obviously you're having trouble grasping that. Oh dear indeed.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is nowhere in this scintillating conversation that I said that you hadn't read something. You're admirably demonstrating my point about your apparent problem with reading comprehension. Are we having fun yet? —  Scott  •  talk  18:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I won’t insult your intelligence by explaining it you.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Obvious keep - Notable, legit subject, not sure what the beef is here? BMK (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable list of entries that relate to a notable topic. AfD is not for cleanup.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of the entries are notable, that's why they have blue links. However, that they are notable in this context, i.e. for their featuring of an incestuous episode, has nowhere been shown, particularly not in the few references that the list currently has. The topic itself is also notable, as even most of the 'delete' !voters have admitted. However, the topic is not covered at all in this list which is just an endless stream of examples. 400+ examples without even the attempt of an explanation does not convey any knowledge, and is not encyclopedic but a WP:COATRACK for irrelevant material. --Pgallert (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Some of the arguments above make a good case that the article is in bad shape as it currently stands.  However, "the article is in bad shape" is not a reason for deletion; it's a reason to fix the article.  Furthermore, "you can't vote to keep the article unless you fix it yourself" is not a valid reason to delete.  Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nobody's saying that either. What is being said is "voting to keep on the basis that somebody will fix it was proven to be a completely erroneous assumption seven years ago, so why are you doing it again now?" —  Scott  •  talk  18:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well you could pull your finger out Scott and do it yourself, but I guess that's too difficult for you.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, you really do suck at reading. Otherwise you would have seen at the top of this page where I wrote there is no way to rescue this article. —  Scott  •  talk  12:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, too hard for you to help. I knew it. Well done you.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I love that you're taking my own point and repeating it as if that's some sort of victory for you. Yes, finding reliable sources for 450+ statements about books, films, television and movies that I haven't read or seen is too hard and I do not have any intention whatsoever of trying. Of course, now you've claimed the moral high ground. You talk the talk, but do you walk the walk? Go forth and salvage, and show me up for the lazy, terrible human being that I am. But I won't hold my breath waiting. —  Scott  •  talk  17:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I will, as soon as this is closed as keep. Now repeat that back to me so I know you've understood it.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No thanks, but I will have a chuckle at your trying to bluff me. Have a great day. —  Scott  •  talk  19:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I will, son. And you have a great day doing whatever the fuck it is you do around here. Nothing by the looks of it.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Love, love, love it when someone gets steamed enough to call me "son" and throw a dick-measuring challenge into the deal. I can guarantee you that my day gets better every time you reply here. Kisses! —  Scott  •  talk  21:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Steamed up? Haha, only in your little mind. If it's serious, then get fixing the article. Oh wait, we've already established you don't have the skills for that.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the sight of an internet tough guy getting his bluff called. —  Scott  •  talk  11:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Chortle. Comedy gold from Martin.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, hypothetically, what would it take to fix this article? Personally I would keep the see-also, the categories, the first sentence of the lead, and a few examples that are actually notable for their incest part of the plot. Thinking of Oedipus the King and Der Ring des Nibelungen again. That would leave me with an unreferenced stub. Then I would probably consult some of the books mentioned by Andrew above and write a more decent stub. I just fear if anyone did that, they would be reverted for removal of "encyclopedic" content. That's why it is valuable to determine right here that the vast majority of the existing content is not encyclopedic. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps we could begin by starting up a lead paragraph that introduces the topic with a full explanation, nuking the entire dot point list for now, and starting up sections for prose paragraphs. If there are any entries that can be cited, they should be written in prose, explaining why that case is notable, rather than simply being listed. That said, I'd rather this page have most of its sections blanked and then worked on, rather than the entire page actually deleted; it would be helpful to be able to look back at the article revision history for things that may potentially be referenced upon doing a few Google searches, and you can't do that if the page is deleted. The majority of these entries are unverifiable, but they can be reintegrated into prose if sources are found, and if they can be shown to be notable examples worthy of actually mentioning. -- benlisquare T•C•E 12:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep : Clearly there was no need of the Afd. So many sources on the page, and information.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 18:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete the list, as there is not much value to a long unsourced list of popular (and serious) fiction that happens to have a certain plot element, it's not an encyclopedic way to present information. However, the subject itself is notable, and whether a new article is built out of snippets from this one or entirely from scratch, any deletion should be without prejudice to recreation as an encyclopedic non-list article. Examples are fine, but this is one of those things where a comprehensive list becomes impossible to maintain. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: The subject is worthy of an article. This, however, is not that article. --Carnildo (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Another mishmash conglomeration of every mention we can find of a topic in popular media. These articles aren't encyclopedic and they shouldn't be encouraged. If we can't present the material from an encyclopedic standpoint, summing up the collective knowledge into a cohesive, prose article, we shouldn't bother having an article on the topic. This article reads like a set of barebones, unpruned notes and keeping it around for years without any cleanup just reinforces the point that bad writing encourages more bad writing. Either trim it down 95% or trim it down 100%; I would prefer the latter but wouldn't object to the former. Scott and NinjaRobotPirate put up good arguments up above and I fully agree with what they say as well.  Them From  Space  23:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * delete unsalvageable in it's current format. Reprovision as Incest in literature. 94.195.46.205 (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TNT, with no prejudice against recreation from scratch as something like Incest in Literature.--Staberinde (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Massively notable subject, as shown by sources listed by and others. The article has problems? Then it needs to be fixed, not deleted. I want to remind anyone linking the (quite bad) essay WP:TNT that our deletion policy asks us to avoid deleting what can be fixed by editing; cfr. WP:ATD. I see no problems that can be fixed only by outright deletion here, and a lot of useful material for a more compact and still comprehensive article. That the article hasn't been fixed until now is not a reason to delete it; we do not have a deadline, we are an eternal work in progress. That someone hasn't fixed it in seven years does not mean someone won't ever fix it. Also entries, while not technically sourced, are practically sourced to the books/artworks they talk about, even if they don't have a little footnote repeating this -yes, it's primary sourcing, it is not awesome, but different from "unsourced". Finally, people stating this is not encyclopedic should be reminded that it is a circular argument (follow the link), basically not different from "I don't like it here". -- cyclopia speak!  13:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.