Incest in film and television: A terrible 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 literature Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Film , Television , Popular culture , Sexuality and gender ,  and Lists .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 06:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Incest in literature - Basically, following up on my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incest in literature , we should not have a massive example farm spread across three articles, and rather have a singular prose article on cultural depictions of incest.  As Incest in literature is in the best shape of the three, the other two lists should be consolidated over there as the basis for a rewrite.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:15, 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.  Wikipedia is not meant to be a TVTropes-like list about every single appearance of the subject.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 09:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Incest in literature .  I support Rorshacma 's scenario.  There are a number of secondary sources on the topic (or sub-topic film/television or parent topic in culture, respectively), so I don't think this fails WP:NLIST / WP:GNG .  Those sources likely feature some of the examples here, so it makes sense to keep the content in the history and WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP .  Daranios ( talk ) 12:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Daranios @ Rorshacma Per my comments at 'in popular culture', I'd think that that article (ipc) being the most broad would make for the best redirect/merge target.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 03:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect as suggested above.  I'm happy to write up a short stub at Incest in literature based on the sources that have been shown in that AfD.  If anyone wants to stubify this one instead of redirecting, I'd be fine with that too.  But I don't feel inclined to help on an "in pop culture" or "in film and TV" article, so I won't be proposing that myself.  -- asilvering ( talk ) 22:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Query: I've added several examples from international film to the list.  With sources for notability (professional reviews or something?), could I migrate them to whatever redirect ends up being the outcome of this AfD?  Mac Dreamstate ( talk ) 12:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mac Dreamstate See WP:NLIST .  Just referencing that work x has the theme of incest is not enough to make a list - that's fine for the article about the work itself and inclusion in the related category.  To make a list, we need to show similar lists exist.  And this article is not even, techically, titled "a list of".  Which is why the proposed rewrite by asilverwing and me will not look like a list, but will have a bit of a prose with few examples backing up the analysis present in soruces.  I hope this helps?  See also similar rewrites, ex.  Venus in fiction (now at FAC) and how it looked a year ago and how it looks now.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Venus in fiction is no longer at WP:FAC —it was just promoted and is now a WP:Featured article .  TompaDompa ( talk ) 01:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, some editors advocating Redirection, others a straight-out Deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and redirect per Rorshacma.  Most of this is missing reliable sources, or violates WP:NOT , or both.  There is nothing to WP:PRESERVE , but there is a valid search term where the topic can be rewritten in an encyclopedic manner.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 14:15, 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.

Discussion outcome: redirect