Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incest in popular culture (2nd nomination)
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
— User:Cyclopia, 13:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:TNT||WP:ATD||WP:DEADLINE||WP:UNENCYC (Wikipedia:Notability)