Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incest 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 no consensus. Numerically, I counted 18 Delete, 13 Keep, 1 Move. The raw count might have been just barely enough to justify a Delete outcome, but looking at the arguments to delete, I saw quite a few (nine, as I count them now) which were essentially, The topic is fine, but the article is badly written. This would work better if rewritten as prose, under a title such as Incest in Literature. Overall, I found those to be weak arguments for deletion. Some people pointed out that the previous AfD (seven years ago!) resulted in, essentially, Keep, but fix, and in all that time, nobody has fixed, so we should declare this a lost cause. Others countered that there are no deadlines.

For what it's worth, here's my collection of what I thought were the most significant sound bites. Many of these may be munged beyond recognition, but assembling this list helped me organize my thoughts, so I figured it's worth preserving (note: don't count the sound bites and expect them to match my tally above; they don't).

• Delete: Little referencing, mostly fails RS. Fails V OR N and GNG.
• Delete: Topic has merit; but list is completely out of control.
• Delete: Blow up and start again
• Delete: Indescriminate, no clear definition of "popular culture"
• Delete: Time to blow it up.
• Delete: Unsourced trivia. Focus is on Anglo-American culture.
• Delete: per WP:IINFO
• Delete: Laundry list, should convert to prose.
• Delete: Rewrite in prose with some coherent vision.
• Delete: per WP:INDISCRIMINATE
• Delete: Unencyclopedic, OR, indiscriminate.
• Delete: Most are notable (blue links) but not in context. WP:COATRACK
• Delete: Unencyclopedic way to present information, but subject is notable
• Delete: Worthy subject, bad article.
• Delete: Mishmash of every mention in popular media.
• Delete: Unsalvageable in it's current format.
• Delete: WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:TNT, no prejudice for recreation as Incest in Literature.

• Move to "Incest in fiction", remove mention of record albums. Subject has been written about by classic Greek playwrights, Faulkner, discussed in college literature classes, thus not trivial

• Keep: Really interesting article.
• Keep: The topic is quite notable as there are numerous books about it.
• Keep: Notable subject, needs better sourcing, convert to prose.
• Keep: Obviously notable and legitimate subject, fix what's broken.
• Keep: Topic is notable, but trim trivial/unreferenced material.
• Keep: Notable, legit subject
• Keep: AfD is not for cleanup.
• Keep: "Can't vote to keep unless you fix it yourself", not a valid reason to delete
• Keep: So many sources on the page

-- RoySmith (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incest in popular culture

Incest in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

What little referencing there is is not directly related to "in popular culture" and mostly fails RS anyway. This leaves us with a massive screed of synthesis and OR masquerading as an encyclopdia article. Fails V OR N and GNG

• Keep Really interesting article. Just made a small contribution myself. Course it needs to be taken in hand. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, that's not a good rationale for keeping. See
    WP:INTERESTING. — Scott • talk 11:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Well I meant interesting in the sense it makes no mention of
      WP:CLUE. I just think that's a real sign of class in a scholarly article devoted to incest in erotic fiction and the article should be kept for that reason alone. If anyone does care to make the relevant edits however, I'll be the first back with a Delete recommendation on the grounds it's a load of shite. Can't be fairer than that. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep The topic is quite notable as there are numerous books about it. Here's a selection:

1. Close Relationships: Incest and Inbreeding in Classical Arabic Literature
2. Nature's Ban: Women's Incest Literature
3. Incest and the Literary Imagination
4. The Politics of Survivorship: Incest, Women's Literature, and Feminist Theory
5. Everybody's Family Romance: Reading Incest in Neoliberal America
6. Violation of Taboo: Incest in the Great Literature of the Past and Present
7. Forbidden Fruit: a study of the incest theme in erotic literature
8. Patriarchy and Incest from Shakespeare to Joyce
9. Incest and the English Novel, 1684-1814
10. Accidental Incest, Filial Cannibalism, & Other Peculiar Encounters in Late Imperial Chinese Literature
11. The German Bildungsroman: Incest and Inheritance

Andrew (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Delete The referencing certainly needs to be improved but this is a
  notable topic given the number of academic texts that have been written on the subject. It would be better rewritten as prose but I fear that is an almost impossible task to carry out given the diversity of the material.  Philg88 ^♦talk 10:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Change to delete. A rewrite is impossible given the size of the article and the referencing required. Tearing it down and starting again seems the only way forward.  Philg88 ^♦talk 18:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, for the reasons given by Spartaz. The issue here is not that the topic itself is without merit; clearly it has some. The issue is that this list is completely out of control. Look at the first AfD and you'll see that it has been completely out of control for at least seven years, meaning that all the "keep but tidy up" votes from back then were absolutely pointless, and any similar votes this time around will be equally pointless. When this article was nominated for deletion in July 2007, it was 43 KB in size. How big is it now? 159 KB. If efforts to reform the list failed - and they did, otherwise we wouldn't be here - when it was literally a quarter of the size it is today, who in their right mind would think that anything can be done about it now? It's time to face the fact that there is no way to rescue this article. None. It needs to be burned to the ground and started again, using sources of the type listed above by Andrew. — Scott • talk 11:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added

  WP:SOFIXIT. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  What part of "nobody has fixed the grotesque problems with this article in the seven years since it survived AfD on the condition of being fixed, during which time it has quadrupled in size" is proving difficult to understand? — Scott • talk 19:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a personal attack. You are patronising me and saying I'm stupid, and that's especially irritating when what you say about the last AfD is simply not true: the result was simply "The result was Keep", a reflection of the roughly 2:1 support for the article, whatever its defects. For what it's worth I do get the points raised here, but they were raised before and nothing has really changed except perhaps the contributions from overseers at Jimbo's Talk page. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per
  original research or else is virtually unbounded due to any drive-by editor with an idiosyncratic view point being able to add their personal favorite to the list. --Allen3 ^talk 12:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Time to
  "it's interesting". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - As above it is certainly a notable subject, Just needs better sourcing and perhaps prosing?. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you volunteering to find sources for each of the 450+ items in this list? Because if you're not, we're far beyond the point of "somebody can fix it". — Scott • talk 17:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope .... On that note changed to Delete .... Probably should'nt !vote per ITSINTERESTING!, As much as it is interesting I don't see the list being sourced anytime this year ... or 5 years later sadly!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Beatles' influence on popular culture likewise consists of hundreds of snippets of information and has just 22 citations. Of course you wouldn't have the slightest chance of getting that article deleted, although the arguments you cite here are just as valid there. In reality there's no need to cite most of the assertions here, verifiability is easily accomplished simply by turning to the work cited (a review perhaps, or its own wiki article) and checking that what is asserted for it is matter of fact true. Just as there is a genuinely encyclopaedic article for the Beatles, so is there scope for a genuinely encyclopaedic article for Incest in Fiction. Since you're proposing a total re-write, why not just write it under that article name and allow this one to coexist? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Various things wrong here. Firstly, with the Beatles example you've just moved from an
          OTHERSTUFF argument. Secondly, I am not proposing a total re-write. I am proposing a total re-write preceded by the complete removal of this article as it currently exists. In other words, that the current state of this article should not be tolerated any further. Thirdly, as to verifiability - as Allen3 points out in the discussion at Jimbo's talk, lists of this sort typically rely on editors making "I know it when I see it" determinations instead of providing sources, which is a recipe for disaster of the precise sort demonstrated by the parlous state of this article. — Scott • talk 19:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • I'm proposing a total re-write of the article Incest in fiction which currently redirects here, while allowing the current article to coexist. What's "wrong" with that? We just happen to differ. Are you say it's wrong to have a differing opinion from you? I don't really follow. There's already a scholarly article
            INTERESTING reread my satire at the top introducing all this. Do you think perhaps that happens to you quite a lot for some reason or other? The addition I made to this article (Edith Wharton's Beatrice Palmato) could not be more scholarly, not its citation (The New Yorker) more impeccable, and I can write the kind of article you would wish to see here in my sleep (conscious of a degree of ridicule given the subject matter). Take your agenda somewhere else please and stop patronising us. Thank you. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • Oh please, please, do enlighten "us" (who's that again?) about the true nature of my agenda. After that, why don't you go and produce that article you're dangling over us, oh great writer of our times, since it's so easy for you? Because, you know, you wouldn't want us to think that you're full of hot air. — Scott • talk 18:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • "Us" would be we happy band of brothers and sister gathered together here (erm ... in common cause) to improve this article. My core editing area is the visual arts. I could do fiction, but I don't really fancy doing an article on "incest in fiction". I've said everything I've wanted to say here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Largely unsourced compendium of trivia. This begs the question: incest in whose "popular culture" — this deal almost exclusively with the Anglo-American setting, omitting about 95% of the world. Unencylopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, either prune extensively and keep or delete without prejudice for a restart from fresh are ok. According to Andrew Davidson's list above, which is no surprise at all, the subject is most likely notable and verifiable. But this article is not it, this one is a mostly indiscriminate list of "xxx in yyy". So, either prune the list, and keep and expand the intro, or delete with no prejudice to recreation, given there is not much of an intro to start with. - Nabla (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: changing from 'comment' to 'delete', after reading on. If kept it shoud be retargeted to Incest in Literature, and so on. - Nabla (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:IINFO. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and recreate as a proper, prose-based article. I agree with many that this article at present is nothing but a laundry list of trivia, failing many of the policies and guidelines noted in the opening statement. However, as Andrew notes with his list of books, the topic itself appears to be notable. Also: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Looks like a classic case of blow-it-up-and-rebuild. Resolute 20:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In the 2007 AFD I said "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." The topic of incest in fiction is itself notable as shown by the secondary sources listed by Andrew above. "Delete it and rewrite it?" Nope, since it will inevitably have a listing of works featuring incest. Deletion is not part of the editing process. We are not "on deadline," so an article does not have to be perfect by some arbitrary date. . Secondary sources exist such as some of the ones Andrew listed can be used to reference examples mentioned in the article. Edison (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:INDISCRIMINATE "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." There is nothing remotely encyclopaedic about a random contributor-complied list of supposed 'examples' of incest in popular culture. If an article on the subject is merited at all, it is one exclusively based on sources which analyse the topic in detail - and nothing in the present article remotely fits that description. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. We have many open-ended lists. The "unsourced" entries are sourced to the works referenced, and simply clicking on their links will generally turn up more specifics. I'm tired of Wikipedia being manipulated to only include things people happen to like the mention of. Wnt (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Things people happen to like: good articles. Things people happen to dislike: hundreds of kilobytes of unreferenced crap. Hope that helps! — Scott • talk 18:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Edison's rationale in particular; we do no favors to the state of knowledge when we wipe out lengthy materials on the off chance that someone might eventually write something else. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Edison and Arxiloxos -- the subject is most certainly notable and deleting it is not the right way to fix any problems the article may have. Adamh4 (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the topic is definitely notable, but an article such as Incest in literature might be more appropriate. As it stands, this article has few merits, and would probably be best blown up. Simply adding a reference for each item still would not be enough, it has to be rewritten in prose with some coherent vision. James^x12345 21:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Funny enough, I was just looking up
  Fatal Frame IV: Mask of the Lunar Eclipse have nothing in common, and no secondary source can be found to claim they have. The list is thus unencyclopedic, original research, and indiscriminate. It should be deleted. --Pgallert (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Excellently put. — Scott • talk 22:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is obviously notable and legitimate subject that deserves a separate page. Yes, some parts of content are problematic. So what? Fix it. My very best wishes (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Cut down, but not delete: The topic is a
  WP:V, however article deletion is not the solution, and we shouldn't delete the entire page due to a content issue. Stubbify the page if necessary, build the article up from scratch, and ensure that additions are properly sourced. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment The administrator that closes this debate needs to bear in mind, when assessing the comments that say "fix it", how nothing at all happened seven years ago when the first AfD closed as "keep" on the basis of identical comments. Likewise, the people posting those comments need to back them up with some explanation of just who's going to be doing that fixing, because I sure don't see anyone here volunteering to do it themselves. — Scott • talk 10:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]