Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incest 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 Keep. Pascal.Tesson 16:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incest in popular culture

Inappropriate trivia collection, with a healthy mix of OR, that serves more as a hindrance to constructing any kind of useful article than as a starting point. --Eyrian 14:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely trivial list of "incest" (WP:5) Corpx 15:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a legitimate extant phenomenon. Is your problem with having an article on the subject altogether, or with the current content of the article? Because if you just don't like the content, you fix it--you don't just try and delete it. Kurt Weber 15:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of "loosely associated topics" (WP:NOT). Anything that mentions the word incest or mildly reference it is put on this list. Corpx 15:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another "list of"/"popular culture" article that is just a bunch of references with no context as to what it MEANS. Serious subject and this list (although compiled nicely) trivializes it. Pharmboy 16:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the solution is not to delete but to try and make some sense of all the copy. Pablosecca 19:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 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. Edison 20:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on my delete: I agree the topic merits an article. I would even drop my objection *if* the article was WAY LESS a list. It is a serious subject. Making it a list trivializes it, like a list of "best movies of 1994". Titling it with Incest in popular culture also trivializes it. Would have to have a serious rewrite with context for me to withdraw delete. Pharmboy 21:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would say not a list at all. CaveatLector^Talk 23:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you accept that it is salvageable, and don't object to the general idea of the subject, then why delete at all? Why not let it stick around for awhile and give people a chance to get something done with it? Kurt Weber 01:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I don't accept that it is salvageable as THIS article, I simply allow that some of the content is worthwhile, just not as "incest in popular culture". The context is simply wrong. Not to violate WP:BEANS but why not Box Office Hits That Featured Incest or Best Selling Books That Feature Incest? These also trivialize the issue and are glorified lists. Pharmboy 18:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There might be a few entries that are mergable to incest article, but as it stands now, it is a list of loosely associated topics. Only link of association is that these works mention or infer an incestuous relationship in some way. Corpx 02:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tidy up, per Edison & Pharmboy. Grutness...wha? 05:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up per Edison and Pablosecca. And source Incest in folklore at the same time. There has been scholarly research [1] and reviews that likely merit not merging a reworked article back to the main article [2] and Incest in film would likely stand as well. An expert hand is required. Canuckle 14:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Biophys 06:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup and consider a rename. "Popular" and "Incest" don't belong in the same title. This is an important issue, however, and one which publishers and producers avoided for millenia after Oedipus came out, up until about 25 years ago. Definitely needs to be edited, particularly since it looks like the consensus will be keep. Mandsford 14:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.