Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necrophilia in popular culture


 * 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Necrophilia in popular culture

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Unsourced for 3 years, nothing but minor/trivial references. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unsourced article that could be improved. Ironically enough, I might love it better if it was dead. Mandsford 03:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep poorly written articles on real subject can always been improved. A good place to start is  with the 5 books listed in WorlCatand the discussion of the individual authors. The list is quite incomplete: for my favorite examples of whats's missing, there's King's Gerald's Game, and Waugh's Vile Bodies    DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's disgusting, but it can be sourced and is notable. See DGG's citations. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * This is yet another example of why we should stop restricting such articles to "popular" culture. There are plenty of references to necrophilia in unpopular culture. I know this isn't the right place to discuss this, and I can't really be bothered to start a site-wide discussion, but I would be in favour of renaming every "xxx in popular culture" article to "xxx in culture", which would go a long way towards presenting Wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia rather than a repository for recentist fandom. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * the academic name for the concept is normally "Influence of ....", but the term "Popular culture" is not derogatory--there are academic departments by that name, PhDs are awarded in it, and there are several serious peer-reviewed journals with the phrase in the title. More generally, Wikipedia has the potential to be both a serious encyclopedia and have a concentration of recent popular topics. It might be hard to do in paper, but ...   DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete or at least move to Necrophilia in culture or better yet Necrophilia in fiction and cut all the unsourced cruft. For example, "In the last episode of the anime School Days, Katsura Kotonoha is last seen hugging the head of her deceased boyfriend Makoto Itō on her yacht," might be an interesting entry in Hugging dead people in popular culture but certainly needs better sourcing for an article about necrophilia. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no particular objection to separating into the three articles  "necrophilia in fiction",  "necrophilia in fiction", and  "necrophilia in fiction", as there will be quite enough material to add. But I do not think this is necessary--it is not yet too long for a single article. FWIW, if the anime School Days is important, I think the listing is perfectly appropriate. It is in fact sourced to the individual episode.    DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hugging a deceased person is not necrophilia. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 06:19, 14 November 2010 (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.