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 no consensus. Any discussions on merging can be taken to the proper channels. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 17:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incest pornography[edit]

Incest pornography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This contains nothing that couldn't serve as a section in Pornography, Incest or Incest between twins, and normally I'd just split-and-merge it (although I'm not convinced the sum of all human knowledge would really suffer were it to be deleted altogether). However, given that this article has been up for four years and seems to have been edited by a disturbingly high number of editors at one point or another, bringing it over to get some kind of consensus as to whether it should be deleted/kept/merged. — iridescent 01:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One Ewww. Second its a just a list of incest porn. Third Ewwwwwwwwwww. Trees Rock^MyGoal 01:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since I specifically haven't given any reason for outright deletion in the nom and this is a procedural nom to determine if there's consensus to delete, merge or keep, any particular reasoning behind the deletion !vote? Not saying it's not a viable choice, but you need better deletion grounds than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — iridescent 02:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 01:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ditto - Since I specifically haven't given any reason for outright deletion in the nom and this is a procedural nom to determine if there's consensus to delete, merge or keep, any particular reasoning behind the deletion !vote? — iridescent 02:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never mind I'm just tired. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, AfD is not a forum to discuss merges. Powers ^T 02:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator did mention deletion as one of the choices. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I've taken a look at this one; the majority of redlinks in this article lead to articles deleted because of lack of notability; I've nominated the articles on the two blue linked twins because they don't meet WP:PORNBIO either. At best, this might be worth a line or two in Pornographic film, but none of the names mentioned should be carried over. The article itself is completely unreferenced, and the external link leads to an article in a source of questionable reliability (perhaps someone from Wikiproject Porn could discuss). Risker (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks reliable sources to satisfy the requirements of validity and notability. Edison (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there are reliable sources out there, with substantial enough coverage to demonstrate notability. There is a mention here. There is a section in this book called "Incest Pornography and the Problem of Fantasy", would be useful if anyone has access to it. It is quoted here. There is more coverage in this book. Couple of news stories: [1], [2], [3]. Some of these may seem somewhat trivial in their coverage, but I think that taken together, there is enough to demonstrated notability. There may be more coverage on the web, but inevitably, it is hard to search for as you have to wade through literally millions of porn sites. I think there could be a good little article there about the connection with incest, child pornography and child abuse. I would potentially support a merge, but as far as I can see, Pornography would not be a great destination because it does not seem to give much attention to any of the sub-genres beyond listing them. I think that it would also take focus away from the child porn / abuse aspect, giving undue weight to the hot twin-on-twin action. Similarly, it could be merged to child pornography, but then it may unduly swing the focus the other way. --BelovedFreak 09:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, there doesn't seem to be any child pornography issue with this article at this point. Risker (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I realise that. That seems to be the focus of the sources I looked at, rather than consenting-adult type incest.--BelovedFreak 14:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 09:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge as one or two lines into Pornography, which is only 41kb anyway, as barely notable. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge as per Casliber. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The book section mentioned is sufficient for notability--the article can be expanded. DGG (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article fails to present any notability of specific trends or genre categories outside of a few obscure skin flicks. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This article was visited 20,000 in April (here) so the subject is relevant to readers and Belovedfreak has provided sources.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 16:43, 25 May 2008 (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.