Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necrophilia 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   keep. Or, at any rate, no consensus for deletion. Consensus is that the problems with the article can be addressed through cleanup.  Sandstein  11:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Completely unsourced, rambling, irrelevant list of trivia. Last AFD closed as no consensus due to nobody agreeing on anything in two weeks. Totally fails WP:SALAT, WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Completely agree. What possibility is there is WP:SYNTH in any case. Shadowjams (talk) 05:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - On the basis of WP:NOTESAL. This list is not notable. Citing an MOS as a reason for deletion isn't cool.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. As much as this is not a very good list, I must say the topic is clearly notable, even if the citations to primary sources aren't made explicit.  There's no doubt the topic is creepy, the examples badly explained and formatted... but the topic has plenty of RS discussion, such as this Google Scholar search. Jclemens (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jclemens. Contra the unexplained WP:SYNTH claim above, this is at worst an example of WP:CALC given that we know what necrophilia is and we know what works of popular culture are (though the list's present inclusion of myths or legends is another issue).  Restricting the list to notable works of fiction obviates any concern with notability, including the off-base concern that the content must somehow be notable specifically in list format.  postdlf (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep When notable cultural artifacts, or particular distinctive human activities, are used as significant elements in notable fiction and other notable cultural phenomena, then a discussion of them is encyclopedic. All that is necessary is to show that the activity or artifact is used in a significant way, and this can be appropriately referenced to the work directly.   These references are needed, but they can be supplied. Any of the items that are not significant can be removed after discussion of the talk page of the article. Such a list is not indiscriminate, for it discriminates in 3 ways: the  artifact, the notable work, and the significant use. Indiscriminate would be including every appearance whatsoever in any fictional work, however non-notable the work. But that is not the case here. There is no problem with WP:V, for the items are attributable--if it is challenged in good faith that the artifact is not in the work mentioned, that does have to be demonstrated. There is no problem with LIST, because more than the bare facts are given.   DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 00:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge with Necrophilia-- Canvas  Hat  03:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is notable - see here, for example. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy.  Warden (talk) 11:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable topic and AfD is not for cleanup.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2011 (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.