Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of incestual relationships


 * 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 snow close per my comments below. I'll e-mail a copy of this to whomever wants one, just let me know on my talk page. The content here is potentially a BLP issue (particularly with the Phillips addition), so this would need a lot of work and research before something like this could be in the mainspace - if it could ever be a mainspace article at all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

List of incestual relationships

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This list has both notability and original research issues, as well as a (theoretically curable) heavy dose of recentism, with all but one entry alive or recently-deceased (raising BLP issues). The inclusion criteria are arbitrarily vague and not based on reliable sources. When both participants in a supposed incestuous relationship are notable, only one is listed. With the exception of Patrick Stübing these people are not primarily known for incestuous relationships, and no source groups them together. In all, I see no indication that such a list would be encyclopedic in the first place, and if it were we could just as well start over and write a new list. Huon (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - salacious and will most likely be based on rumor; additionally, not of encyclopedic value. —Мандичка YO 😜 22:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, a thoroughly trivial and miscellaneous topic: not at all encyclopedic. Perhaps we could tack something of the sort onto a list of the Ptolemaic pharaohs (they typically married their sisters) or various kings of Spain (they often married their nieces, if I remember rightly), but a list of this sort is thoroughly useless.  PS, this article can't stay at its present title; the adjectival form of "incest" is "incestuous", not "incestual". Nyttend (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  22:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Likely delete as I reviewed the article and it simply doesn't look likely to improve and there will surely be issues. SwisterTwister   talk  22:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that I may snow close this early, if everyone is OK with this. There are several huge issues with the way the article is laid out at this point in time. There is possible merit to having a list of the sort that Everymorning describes, but this isn't that list. Part of this is because there is a BLP issue here: this is the sort of thing that lends itself to rumor when it comes to living people. For example, while Phillips claims that she and her father did have an incestuous relationship, there are people who claim that it is false. That's why the section about this in her article is labeled "allegations", as there is a legal issue there. Putting something in an article like this gives off the impression that it did happen. The other issue is that people might have an issue with the word "relationship" since there is an inherent bias with the word. While the term isn't used solely for willing, consensual relationships, that is the first thought that comes to mind with the term and some might take exception with its usage if there might be a better term. I will say that if I snow close it early I am willing to send someone a copy of the article if they want to try to find a better format for this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically TL;DNR, this article is a BLP nightmare waiting to happen in its current format. Plus I'm not sure why "List of pansexual people" is in the article at all. Being pansexual does not mean that you are into incest. I'm not pan, but I know people who are and they'd be pretty offended at the comparison since it plays into the stereotype that pansexual people are down for anything, anyone, anywhere. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:05, 8 August 2015 (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.