Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incest between twins

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The result was Nomination withdrawn, closed early with no remaining deletes. non-admin closure Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incest between twins[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Random assortion of trivia, and the article also covers such a specific topic as to be non-notable excluding the all-encompassing "popular culture" section. Anything worth keeping can be moved into Incest and then the article deleted. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable anthropological concept. I'll clean this up and source it properly. Claritas § 09:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - cleaned-up, flagging for rescue. Claritas § 09:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this might have enough anthropological significance to be notable in its own right despite the absence of an article for "sibling incest"; I'll have more time to look over the article and its sources later and will consider withdrawing the nom then. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDespite any "EEW, I don't like it!" arguments, it seems to have significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, thereby satisfying notability. Edison (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To which "EEW, I don't like it!" arguments are you referring? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Laws requiring twins to marry, historical figures in mythology, etc. That makes it quite notable. For thousands of years the stories have endured, and been at least at one time, a key factor in the shaping of the culture of a society. I don't know if any of the more modern depictions in entertainment fiction belong in the article or not. Those have all been deleted. [1] Dream Focus 08:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination per anthropological / cultural significance demonstrated after the article's cleanup. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:02, 6 July 2010 (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.