Deletion of Incest in popular culture (2nd nomination)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: as per |Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  As an "in popular culture" article, this article is dependent upon a clear definition of what is and is not part of popular culture.  Unfortunately popular culture is a dynamic and highly subjective entity that forces editors to employ some form of "I know it when I see it" test to determine what is or is not part of popular culture.  This means that inclusion of items into the list is either based upon some form of |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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:NOR)

Comment: Massively |notable subject, as shown by sources listed by {{u|Andrew Davidson}} and others. The article has problems? Then it needs to be fixed, not deleted. I want to remind anyone linking the (quite bad) essay  that our deletion policy asks us to avoid deleting what can be fixed by editing; cfr. . I see no problems that can be fixed only by outright deletion here, and a lot of useful material for a more compact and still comprehensive article. That the article hasn't been fixed until now is not a reason to delete it; we |do not have a deadline, we are an eternal work in progress. That someone hasn't fixed it in seven years does not mean someone won't ''ever'' fix it. Also entries, while not technically sourced, are practically sourced to the books/artworks they talk about, even if they don't have a little footnote repeating this -yes, it's primary sourcing, it is not awesome, but different from "unsourced". Finally, people stating this is |not encyclopedic should be reminded that it is a circular argument (follow the link), basically not different from "I don't like it here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:TNT||WP:ATD||WP:DEADLINE||WP:UNENCYC)

Comment: The topic is a |notable one, the problem that we currently have is that the page has too much trivial and unreferenced material. The problematic material should be removed in accordance with , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: per  and , with no prejudice against recreation from scratch as something like Incest in Literature
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:TNT)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO)

Comment: Time to |blow it up.  This is a blatant TV Tropes article, and there's almost nothing salvageable.  It would be better to delete it and start over again from scratch.  Even if it's kept, it's going to require a complete rewrite, so I don't really see the point in keeping it.  For one thing, deletion would reduce the risk of someone edit warring to keep in all that original research under the argument that |"it's useful" or |"it's interesting
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:ITSUSEFUL||WP:ITSINTERESTING)

Comment: per  "'''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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)