Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBT Characters in The Star Trek Universe

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LGBT Characters in The Star Trek Universe
I know this'll start a huge controversy, but whatever. This article is nothing about a long non-encyclopedic essay on why the creators of Star Trek don't have gay characters. User:Luigi30 (&Tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa;) 17:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm half expecting a 'discrimination' stance for any keep voters. LGBT articles can go too far - Category:Gay icons genuinely annoys me. Hedley 17:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's actually an interesting essay with real world connections, and analyses the series and its attempts to introduce gay characters quite well. Could do with a less clunky title, maybe, but I don't see why it's "not encyclopedic". --khaosworks 18:04, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I expected visiting the article to confirm my instinct to delete, but it does at least a fairly good job of explaining an issue with appropriate citation.  Wikipedia is not paper so it's not like the servers can't absorb this work.  I see no reason to delete it: it doesn't violate any policies, even if it is narrow in focus. -SocratesJedi | Talk 18:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Suppliment: Perhaps we could rename to simply "LGBT Characters in Star Trek"? -SocratesJedi | Talk 18:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with this renaming. Demi T/C 18:12, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
 * Category:Gay icons and other homosexuality-related articles aren't really part of this discussion. The article needs some editing--it is not unbiased, but at the same time seems to be describing a real debate, and has sources to back at least some of this up. I'm not even sure it needs a tag, so I'm voting Keep. Demi T/C 18:11, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
 * Keep that is a debate that I already encountered years and years ago, and this is not an essay, but a summary of all the related things, both in the series and behind the screen. -- AlexR 18:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I say that almost reluctantly, because it's a long, thorough, well-written and presumably well-researched article. However, the whole thing could basically be summarized by "Star Trek doesn't have any gay characters" though it takes quite a few paragraphs to get there.  Much of the padding material consists of speculation and descriptions of characters who kinda-sorta might have been gay.  At best, it's a well-intentioned article which really needs to document its sources better.  At worst, it veers dangerously close to libel: "Some fans feel that...Berman and Paramount of selling out the progressive Roddenberry dream in favor of contemporary bigotry and a hypocritical commercial cop-out." See also Weasel words.  I definitely feel this is an interesting subject and should be posted and discussed somewhere, but isn't an encyclopedic topic.  If it absolutely must stay, I suggest squeezing it down into a paragraph or two and putting it in one of the main Trek articles or into a GLBT in culture article. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  19:19, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but rewrite somewhat as the insertion of sections looks somewhat forced in the flow of the text, and they should be able to be read out of order.     19:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Liberally condense and Merge. There's not much meat to this article, and most of it is original research couched in language like "some fans believe...", etc. This whole concept could easily be summarized in a paragraph or section in one of the main Star Trek articles, such as Society and Star Trek. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  20:12, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but revise to remove original research and filter for possible POV. There were some attempts to add LGBT sections to each of the series articles, but I think the issue is best left discussed all at once, as is the case here. I don't know if it's necessary to have subcategories. 23skidoo 20:14, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, why not? Hooray cruft~! Sam Spade 21:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wow. Brilliant article, could do with some POV tweaks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not move to a title that does not assert that there are, in fact, such characters? Although I would also support deleting.  I'm wavering on whether it is encyclopedic, but the current title doesn't make sense. 68.165.6.18 02:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, that was me. platypeanArchcow 02:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Could use some work, but it's quite a bit better than a lot of articles here. Give it some time. Ground Zero 03:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. this article is interesting, and although it could use some work and perhaps a name change, it is informative and discusses an issue that apparently exists in the Trekkie community. Bonus Onus 03:31, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: interesting. Give it a better title, though, without an unpronounceable acronym that sounds like a kind of sandwich. No Account 03:36, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep interesting. JamesBurns 04:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, especially notable given the press coverage received when DS9 scripted a lesbian kiss. Xoloz 05:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but the article does need plenty of references to back up it's claims, otherwise my vote should be changed to a merge. Axon 13:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is a good one and has plently of references to back up what it claims.  I fear that some homophobia is at work in the efforts to delete the page.  (unsigned comment by 216.239.18.174.) Xoloz 21:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: Well argued and interesting essay on a legitimate and not particularly POV. carmeld1 23:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems well-written and encyclopedic to me, not to mention notable and definitely tied into real-world events. -CunningLinguist 00:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It comes close to being original reserach, but doesn't quite cross the line IMHO. --Angr/undefined 06:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * An interesting topic, and a fairly unbiased approach. Oddly enough, by restricting itself to the TV series, it ignores that controversy about a TNG movie character who was supposed to be "gay", and the overt gayness of one of the SCE characters, in the (supposedly) authorised Pocket e-books series.  --Simon Cursitor 07:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article now addresses Lt. Hawk, of Star Trek: First Contact, the "almost" gay movie character, under the TNG section. I'm not sure if this is a recent edit. Xoloz 08:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I am going to have a section on the Star Trek comic books/novels and one on the video games. Both are brief.  I fail to see how my article has "gone to far" it is simply explaing the factual history behind the controversy (among fans) over how the franchise has dealt with LGBT people, and why. ''(This comment added by 199.17.94.37 Demi T/C 19:28, 2005 May 21 (UTC))
 * Keep. This is a valid and ongoing point of contention regarding the Star Trek universe.  -Seth Mahoney 00:46, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Interesting, well-researched and important because of the iconic status of this TV franchise. --Ian Pitchford 14:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. As said above, this article is quite interesting and well-researched.  --Doradus 15:08, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment for the author: I would like to see as many references as possible. For one thing, it will help to prevent this page from reappearing on VfD.  It can also help people who are interested in the topic do research of their own.  Thanks for the contribution!  -Seth Mahoney 19:20, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. I absolutely agree with Ian. --62.245.160.218 20:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep, as long as this essay can be turned into a proper article, removing speculation and adding properly referenced facts. Exploding Boy 22:30, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per No original research and it appearing to be original research. I'm surprised no one has linked this policy yet, but it's clear to me that it should be deleted.  In fact, I'd consider renominating this for VFD when this one is up simply because this has a) been over looked and b) has a lot of votes.  Other than saying "there are no gays in Star Trek", I don't see much that isn't original research. Cburnett 06:23, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you can safely assume that most people who voted here know about the "no original research" policy. Hence, re-nominating this article for deletion would be completely unnecessary, to say the least. -- AlexR 07:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article has plenty of sources - they just need to be worked into the text. --Ian Pitchford 10:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Highlights an important aspect of Star Trek in popular culture. The article has plenty of references that need to be linked and referenced more thorougly..Melvakar 11:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is an important slice of science fiction Americana.  The article has provided numerous cites to back up each and every quote and statement.
 * Keep. Stays just the right side of the original research line. OpenToppedBus - Talk 14:41, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment:I don't think that this should be an article merely because it's not encyclopedic; additionally, while some of the information presented here is useful, much of it is mere speculation or discussion thereof. Moreover, I don't think that the title is appropriate for Wikipedia- not everyone knows what LGBT stands for (I myself can only hazard a guess as to its meaning given the context and still haven't figured out the T). In summary, this article should not continue to exist as it is. M412k 14:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The T is for "Texan". ;-) Ground Zero 14:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .