Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incest in popular culture (3rd 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 redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Incest in literature. Liz Read! Talk! 07:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Incest in popular culture
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The usual case of "list of random media that features this concept". Very poorly referenced (just four footnotes, two of them for the same exhibition), failing WP:NLIST as a list and WP:GNG as a general article. Perhaps this could be rewritten from scratch (last AfD from 2014 suggested some sources), but if so, WP:TNT applies (perhaps this could be stubbed with sources found back then?). Also, from the very lead: "Incest is a popular topic in English erotic fiction" - even the (unreferenced) lead is not usable, as most 'in popular culture' topics obviously exist outside of the English world (newsflash: there is non-English popculture too). To prove this p oint, the ja wiki corresponding article seems to have some referenced prose content that might be used to create a section in 'incest in Japanese popular culture' or 'incest in Japanese art' or such, but I cannot access/verify the references. (But I am tagging this AfD under Japan topics too, maybe this will be of use to someone). So bottom line is - nothing here is rescuable, the lead is incorrect and what follows is TV Tropes level OR. PS. Related AfDs: Articles for deletion/Incest in literature. Articles for deletion/Incest in film and television. Even if this is rescued (which would involve a total rewrite), I doubt there is anything in those mostly unreferenced lists of works that would be useful here. Any examples discussed in the body need to be acompanied by analysis, since per cited policies, Wikipedia articles should not be just lists of examples (and certainly we don't need three poorly referenced lists about the same topic). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture, Sexuality and gender, Lists,  and Japan. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Incest in literature - Basically, following up on my comments at Articles for deletion/Incest in literature, we should not have a massive example farm spread across three articles, and rather have a singular prose article on cultural depictions of incest. As Incest in literature is in the best shape of the three, the other two lists should be consolidated over there as the basis for a rewrite. Rorshacma (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * But 'in literature' is more specific. I can't imagine how merging example farm related to TV or video games into literature would make any sense. If we want to merge, then merging here would be best (not that I think any of that TVTropish stuff needs a merge in any direction). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Whichever article is left, it would still need to have a complete reworking and retitling - it would not be merging TV/Movie/Etc examples into an article about literature, it would be using the Literature article as a base for a prose article on "culture depictions of incest" without the TV Tropes style lists. I chose the "Literature" article as the base, simply because there has already been a demonstration of scholarly sources on that topic, something that has not been shown for the "TV/Movies" or "Pop Culture" versions, thus it would be the easiest to basically reduce down to a sourced stub, to serve as the base for later expansion. I am proposing Redirecting (NOT merging) of the other two articles to there simply to preserve the history, in case someone would want to sift through them to see if there is anything actually worthwhile buried in them. Any simple transferring of the listcruft should absolutely not be done. Rorshacma (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Whichever article is left, it would still need to have a complete reworking and retitling" - which is why my preference is for WP:TNT everything, then stubbing something at 'in popular culture' based on reliable academic sources found, plus translating the section from ja wiki I mention there, which seems analytical. Could work with SOFTDELETE (redirects) if anyone would be willing to stub something useful during the discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  00:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Redirect I think. I did not see this discussion at first. I don't have a strong opinion on where to start and where to redirect. Incest in literature does have some referenced and worthwhile content to use. ...in popular culture here on the other hand does have the broad topic designation. One could argue that the suggested ...in culture would be a better fit in the long run, and then it matters less from where one branches out. My personal experience is that these listings we have here, even if undesirable as Wikipedia articles, can still be helpful for future selective incorporation. That's why I think they should be preserved in the history, i.e. redirected, not deleted. Daranios (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect as suggested above. I've offered to write a brief stub for Incest in literature over on that one's AfD discussion. Redirecting this article to that one is a better alternative than merging or redirecting the other one to this one, imo. I personally have no desire whatsoever to write even a stub for "Incest in popular culture". -- asilvering (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2023 (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.