Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incest in entertainment
- 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 delete. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- Incest in entertainment (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)
A melange of unsourced trivia. This topic is by its nature unencyclopedic, nothing more than a junk drawer of unrelated trivia factoids. It is one of a series of three "Incest In..." articles created by the same editor, I'm running this through AfD as a test case since somebody already previously laid a NOTABILITY flag on it. If this ends in deletion, the other two articles need to go away also, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 18:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- delete As WP:TRIVIA WP:ESSAY. Mangoe (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The three articles Incest in film and television, Incest in literature, and Incest in entertainment are a split of the 9 year-old Incest in popular culture lacking the necessary proper link in the initial edit summary. All 4 need to be considered in unison and the proper attribution of edits restored. Bazj (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. It's better to delete these unsourced example farms and start over again from scratch. The encyclopedic stuff, if we can find and source it, can be discussed the main article, which is now mostly just a stub. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:V. The lede also has a WP:V problem, and there is no reason to believe that this topic exists other than as a WP:SYNTH of WP:OR. Unscintillating (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2016 (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.