Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twincest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 to delete, default to keep, but moved to Incest between twins. A merger is an editorial matter, but I've put the merge tags in in my capacity as an editor. Sandstein 22:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Twincest

Twincest (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A neologistic dictdef, with a handful of "examples" from pop culture that don't actually use the dictdef. The single reference doesn't use the dictdef either. This page doesn't even establish the common currency that Wiktionary wants, let alone notability (in the form of references in reliable sources) or importance or anything but a definition and a handful of OR examples.

This was prodded, but it was deprodded without comment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that any term that finds currency among fanfic writers is going to be disproportionately represented on Google, while often not being represented at all in publications (as opposed to personal sites, fansites, and forums). This does not prevent a term used exclusively by fanfic writers from being a neologism. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Compromise? - merge/redirect -- OK, I see your point and the consensus seems to be delete or merge (as noted below, I had overlooked the option of merging before). How about merging the content into the incest article and then turning this page into a redirect (as it obviously has relatively wide use--even if only among fanfic writers)? The new section in the incest article would be titled not "twincest" but something like "incest between twins" and would mention the term twincest only in the context of being a fanfic term. This would also avoid claims of NOR based on applying the term to particular instances in fiction or real life. I don't anticipate it would take me more than 5-15 minutes to complete the merge and subsequent cleanup. If you express your support for this proposal, I will go ahead and do the merge (without your support as hte nominator, it may seem as if I'm going against consensus even though at least 4 editors have supported keep or merge). Black Falcon 06:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to a merge if someone produces some sources, but right now we have zero sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I performed the merge and some cleanup, but I don't think the Incest article is the appropriate place for this, so I reverted the merge. Incest is essentially affiliated with (and most often a form of) physical/emotional abuse. Incest among twins, on the other hand, is a subgenre of erotica, pornography, and fanfic. I have replaced the Twincest article with what I think is an improved version, and will add a few sources presently. As for WP:NEO, I agree with the proposal by User:JoshuaZ that the article should be renamed to "Incest among twins" -- I can do this once the AfD closes or you withdraw your nomination (if, of course, you think the new verison is satisfactory). Black Falcon 20:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism at best, seems to be mostly a fanfic/fanart term. A book search does turn up "twincest" in a fancy-sounding book called "An Anthropology of the Subject", but looking at the context it seems to be unrelated: "a figure and a feeling that is simultaneously attractive and repulsive." At best, this would be a redirect to incest or perhaps it belongs among Fan fiction terminology if a good source can be found. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I would love to see the source that uses "twincest" to describe the Ring cycle.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 09:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:NEO. MER-C 13:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable dicdef Avi 17:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think the article needs significant improvement (mostly further research and sourcing), but how is this WP:NEO. A Google search of twincest excluding Wikipedia gives over 80,000 hits. Also, it's not just a dicdef as it gives real-world cultural references (I find the Balinese example to be particularly noteworthy as it's non-fictional and sourced)! Black Falcon 18:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Allow me to flush out my argument by responding to the article's criticisms:
    1. "It violates WP:NEO/is non-notable" - see the Google search above; the term gets over 80,000 non-WP or WP-mirror hits. Now granted, many of those hits do not meet WP:RS, but it is proof that the term has widespread usage (even if within a somewhat specialized community).
    2. "It is a dicdef" - it is not just a dicdef as it provides actual examples (including 2 nonfictional) and other content. Only the first line is a definition--what about the rest of the article?
    3. "It violates WP:NOR" - given the very clear and simple definition, it doesn't take any research to note that the incestual sexual scene between the Sorrel twins in Cruel Intentions 2 qualifies under that definition. The examples don't have to mention the source by name. If a politician says that Germany is going to invade the country south of it, east of Switzerland, north of Italy, and west of Hungary, he/she doesn't have to name Austria for us to understand what he's referring to and to include the comment in German-Austrian relations.
    4. "It's a fanfic/fanart term" - this is essentially the same criticism as the first. Yes, it is a fanfic term that has relatively wide usage. Being fanfic is no reason for deletion.
  • A final comment regarding the article's potential for expansion. I expect there would be a significant amount of notable research on this subject within the general literature on incest (twincest being a subcategory of incest). Black Falcon 19:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Black Falcon. Edison 21:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NEO. Seems like cruft as well. Fundamentaldan 21:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Black Falcon. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Original research, poorly referenced, and not at all notable. Plus it's disgusting and illegal --TommyOliver 22:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Child molestation is "disgusting and illegal" but it's an encyclopedic topic. I cannot help but think that you are voting simply out of a negative emotional reaction to the topic. In an AfD discussion, we should consider whether the article merits to be in this encyclopedia, rather than whether or not it's a pleasant topic to ponder/read about. You claim its non-notable, yet the term gets over 80,000 Google hits (this still excludes all print sources that aren't available online). You claim it's poorly referenced, and I agree with that (in part)--so put an unreferenced tag on the article. Finally, you say it's OR--how so? What part of it is original research (there is no new, unique synthesis of material--it's simply a compilation of a few examples)? Black Falcon 22:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If you enjoy twincest that's your business. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for sexual fantasies. There's one single reference. Most of the examples are ambiguous and/or works of fiction. You don't need to attack me just for adding a contribution that you disagree with. --TommyOliver 23:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Firstly, I do not, as you put it, "enjoy twincest". To say that I do is equal to saying that those who created the "child molestation" article are child molesters and contributors to the "Holocaust" article favor genocide. Secondly, this IS an encyclopedia and it should include terms that have wide usage, despite how unpleasant (either for one person or for many) the subject matter they concern. There's a single reference in the article, but there are >80,000 ghits. I'm sure at least a few of these can be used as references. I note, again: if the problem is references, add an "unreferenced" tag. Thirdly, there is nothing in my comment that is an attack. "Voting out of a negative emotional reaction" is inappropriate for AfD, but certainly nothing insulting. I can't imagine anyone ever saying: "Yo mama so [insert some term], her vote on a Wikipedia AfD was based on an emotional reaction." Finally, I believe my statement was a reasonable (though I realize not possibly incorrect) induction given the text of your vote: "Original research, poorly referenced, and not at all notable. Plus it's disgusting and illegal (emphasis added). I merely asked you to clarify your reasons for claiming that the articles is OR and NN. Cheers, Black Falcon 01:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please do keep in mind that articles about neologisms need to have sources that discuss the term, not sources that simply use the term. I have heard this term before, it definitely "exists", but it doesn't necessarily warrant an article unless the proper type of sources are found.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a single source given uses the term. Now, if someone wanted to write an article entitled "Incest among twins" or something similar that might be encyclopedic- it would still have WP:OR issues but that might be able to be dealt with. So if this isn't deleted, I woudln't object to rewriting the intro and moving it to something like that. JoshuaZ 00:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - merge? I would not oppose a similar solution. (Note, however, that the term "twincest" is not a neologism. I do not make this claim out of some "expertise" in twincest as TommyOliver might suggest, but out of a simple online search for the term that yields a great number of results.) It may also be appropriate to merge the article into the main Incest page. I had not considered this before, but it may be a viable alternative to keeping or deleting it. -- Black Falcon 01:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Merging seems reasonable. JoshuaZ 01:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • (after a couple of edit conflicts)Keep, but move as per JoshuaZ - needs a massive rewrite, but this could form the basis of an interesting article, and the large number of ghits indicates that this name could stay as a redirect if such an article is created. Grutness...wha? 01:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and move any material that is interesting to relevant articles. The article offers no support for its notion of the meaning of the term and therefore fails WP:V and WP:OR. The only reference that actually uses the term is the performance art group, and their definition is rather different. (If they’re notable, maybe the article should be about them instead.) Also, why would Germany invade Liechtenstein? —xyzzyn 01:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Touché ... unless I hold the non-neutral and unverified view (which I am willing to defend to the death) that Liechtenstein is really just a breakaway province of Switzerland that is controlled by a shadowy junta--called the Liechtenstein Order of Social Education, Reform, and Security (LOSERS)--that wants to establish a rogue state with nuclear capabilities in an effort to achieve world domination! On a slightly different note, I would support moving the material to relevant articles (the only one I can think of is incest, although another article that I don't know of may be appropriate). Cheers, Black Falcon 01:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The meaning of the term is instantly comprehensible, and as has been noted, used many thousands of times. Significant major works (Wagner, Lucas) have key themes involving twincest. Stating that they are fictional is without merit as WP contains numerous articles on fictional subjects (Shakespearean characters and Back to the Future characters come to mind as representative examples.) The existence of the article does not imply support for the practice. Ringbark 23:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unsorced. --MaNeMeBasat 18:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Unsourced? The article currently has six sources of which three are from scholarly journals. If you mean that the article's current title is inappropriate for the subject matter, then I agree, but that is hardly a reason to delete when it can be solved through a simple page move (I simply haven't done so yet as I don't know if it's appropriate to do a page move during an AfD). Black Falcon 18:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
      • But even if moved, does Incest between twins in fiction really have a chance of ever becoming a good article, as opposed to being a good section somewhere? —xyzzyn 18:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
        • The article could have the more general title Incest among twins (a number of the "popular culture" examples listed are non-fictional). I initially supported merging it to Incest but decided against doing so after comparing the two articles. Incest is usually a form of (non-consensusal) abuse (and the article explicitly treats it as such), whereas incest among twins essentially amounts to a genre of eroticism, pornography, and/or sexploitation. I think the article could be a good, if relatively short (not stub-length though), article if someone were to make the effort to expand it (I say someone instead of me because, as my edit history can prove, my editing interests lie in other subjects). In any case, I think this article can stand on its own as a stub, and if anyone wants to make it a section elsewhere, I have no objections (my objection is to the content being deleted). Cheers, Black Falcon 18:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
          • OK. —xyzzyn 20:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - the sources clearly demonstrate notability for the phenomenon, and its import especially in fiction, as well as material for its expansion - but it absolutely must be renamed. Incest between twins seems a sensible compromise. At a push, it might be merged to the incest article, but there seems to me to be enough for a separate article. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 19:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to incest between twins or something like that and tag for a merge to incest. —xyzzyn 20:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable; maybe rename. Everyking 05:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep renaming is certainly a good idea (since the current, well-written and properly sourced article is about the cultural concept rather than the neologistic fan-fiction term). It looks great now. Eluchil404 08:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename per above. AgentPeppermint 21:48, 7 February 2007 (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.