Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incest in literature

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. which is due in part to the nominator's withdrawal of the nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incest in literature

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Slightly better referenced then Incest in film and television, this is still failure of MOS:TRIVIA, WP:NLIST, WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, in the form of 'random films and television featuring topic foo'. WP:NOTTVTROPES. If someone tries to rewrite Incest in popular culture (which I feel needs a WP:TNT but theoretically could be a notable topic), I doubt anything from this list of trivia would be useful there anyway. Related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incest in film and television _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, Popular culture, Sexuality and gender, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject is absolutely notable, without the faintest doubt. There are scholarly books on the subject[1][2], the subject is of interest to very reliable newspapers (The Guardian)[3] which makes the point that this goes back to Sophocles and Oedipus Rex. I can see that the current article is basically an extended list and needs drastic sorting-out, but I don't think the existing information is of zero use to anyone who wants to make improvements, so I cannot recommend a TNT delete. This is one of those situations where the encyclopaedia would benefit from more improvement and less deletion. Finding good sources on this is ridiculously easy. Elemimele (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Best case scenario, the utterly ridiculous example farm that is spread across three different articles should be removed, and a singular article on the topic of "Cultural depictions of incest", or something like that, should be generated instead, using the sources like the ones Elemimele presented. The current state of the articles are such a mess, though, that there's not a super simple way to do this. As both the nom mentioned, and backed up by Elemimele's comment, this one is in marginally better shape than the other two, so I suppose my suggestion would be to Redirect the other two articles here, and use this one as the base of a rewrite. Rorshacma (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE as a pure example farm without context. Notable as the topic may be, it requires deletion as unsuitable for Wikipedia, i.e. WP:DEL-REASON #14. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been rewritten, therefore I am changing to Keep per WP:HEY. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. I support Rorshacma's scenario. The topic is notable as shown by Elemimele, and therefore does not fail WP:NLIST/WP:GNG. There are some references/referenced comments to preserve here. Daranios (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No criteria or scope. Purely list cruft. ScriptKKiddie (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that this is pure listcruft. There is almost no prose in it whatsoever outside of bullet points. But the title in no way indicates that this is a list article, so it seems to me that the best way to handle it is to stubify it. We can leave a link to this historical version of the article on the talk page for anyone who thinks the lists would be helpful for future expansion. Any objection to handling it in this way? I'll happily write up a stub about the topic in general, but I don't want to do that unilaterally while the AfD is ongoing. -- asilvering (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: Sounds fine to me and in the vein of Rorshacma's suggestions. Thanks! But please be aware of this parallel discussion. Daranios (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I'll get on it a bit later today unless anyone has an objection in the meantime. -- asilvering (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, that's the constructive way of applying WP:TNT. If you wait, this could be hard deleted (I prefer soft delete myself, some tidbits from history might be useful for someone). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ps. To be constructive, I volunteer to translate the referenced seciton on Japanese literature from Japanese Wikipedia. Initially I thought it might be out of scope for literature but it is only about novels and manga, not about anime or other media as I initially thought, so it should fit into the 'literature' article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've stubbed it. Unfortunately I don't have online access to that contemporary lit book Elemimele found, so I couldn't use it as the basis for a stub. There's much more that can be done, obviously, but I've got to take a break for now. Honestly, I don't think there's much useful at all in the previous version; I grabbed the only examples that I thought would be useful in an overview article. -- asilvering (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering That book seems accessible through Wikipedia Library: link (if it does not work, go to WL, OUP collection, and just seearch for the book title). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. The article has been effectively WP:TNTed and rewritten, addressing all of my concerns. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 25 August 2023 (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.