Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesbian kiss episode (2nd nomination)


 * 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   Early close. Previous AfD closed as keep only two weeks ago, there's no point rehashing this debate so soon afterwards. If editors want to merge to Media portrayal of lesbianism they can discuss that on the talk pages. Fences &amp;  Windows  00:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Lesbian kiss episode (2nd nomination)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View log)

The terms of reference for this article (ie, the lesbian kiss episode is a new "sub-genre" of American television) are mostly based on an out of date article from The New York Times. This presents major WP:ONESOURCE and point of view issues, as the lesbian kiss episode phenomenon has been observed in Australian television for years now. I am sure it will soon appear in other countries as well.

I doubt these issues will be resolved by splitting the article into two separate lists for American and international television programs. My experience is that even one list would be difficult to maintain as more and more episodes which are rating stunts are added. Two editors who argued to keep the article in the first AFD are firmly against expanding the criteria for inclusion, say to include all lesbian kiss episodes which drew more than a million viewers. I feel the only alternative is to delete the article and use a category until more up to date sources are available. Ottre 05:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Kinda sorta soon since the last nomination, but yes this should be deleted for the reasons stated.  JBsupreme (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This certainly appears to be a notable phenomenon.  I agree trying to keep an exhaustive list is becoming increasingly pointless and/or difficult, so I wouldn't mind seeing that removed.  However, the first several, especially L.A. Law, Roseanne, and DS9, attracted significant coverage at their respective times and a decent article could be written from those sources.  Powers T 12:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and close - this article was nominated less than a month ago and kept. The nominator offers absolutely nothing to support a new nomination. There are many sources that discuss the phenomenon in American television so the premise of this untimely new nomination is false. Otto4711 (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing administrator: this is a knee-jerk response. In fact, there are only three sources which discuss the phenomenon in American television: the article by Stephen Tropiano, the second article by Sarah Warn (the one about Buffy), and the article by Virginia Heffernan of the New York Times. Of these, the first two are not scholarly analyses, and the latter is an out of date article. Ottre 16:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Out of date" has no meaning in this discussion. The NYT article expresses how these episodes have been viewed. Other sources may or may not express how these episodes are viewed in some other fashion. If so, the proper course of action is to add the other sources, not delete this article. And again, this was discussed less than a month ago. Nominating the same article over and over again in hopes of getting a different answer is contrary to the mission of AFD and contrary to the principles of consensus. Otto4711 (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Go read the recent last AfD for tons of good reasons. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge as a POV fork from Media portrayal of lesbianism from where it was split off. The very focused scope of this article is based on a premise so narrow it goes into POV territory ("lesbian antics are great for a quick ratings grab, and not much else"), ignoring other aspects of media coverage of displays of lesbian affection, even going so far as to ignoring different points of view that exists for some of the specific episodes in the list. (ie: the article here only describes it as a great ratings grab, ignoring both the pioneering aspects of some the episodes (several of these are the first ever portrayal of any sort of lesbian affection in the medium or genre) as well as how the creators/producers have described how from their pov it certainly wasn't an easy ratings grab, but something they had to argue at length with studio heads to even get on the air. (sources for this at this archived discussion). It also (out of necessity due to its scope) ignores the inevitable flipside of the coin, ie episodes/shows that do portray lesbianism, but where kissing or any sort of physical affection was excluded due to, basically, homophobic attitudes of the powers that be. The article could probably be expanded/amended to be more neutral, but then the very narrow scope of it would lose much of its meaning, and the contents would be better covered within the context of the article where it was previously housed. For example these episodes and broader commentary on them could be covered alongside other tv portrayals of lesbianism in a chronological order. And, like I said at the link, certainly include the "lesbian kiss episode" phenomenon in that article as one aspect of tv portrayals of lesbianism. But it is just one aspect of many, and as such in my opinion not best suited to a separate article. The list table has OR and indescriminate information issues and should be deleted or culled back to episodes which have been defined as a "lesbian kiss episode" in reliable sources. Right now the unsourced entries in the list includes both cable and broadcast shows, with no apparent reason for why these specific episodes were selected. It appears the list is intended to include every tv episode with a female same-sex kiss, implying that all of them are "lesbian kiss episodes", something that is not supported by sources. If the list was redefined to only include every broadcast episode (which again, nothing in the sources to support that every such episode can be defined as a "lesbian kiss episode") it would still have approximately 100 entries, raising both OR and indescriminate information concerns. See the list I pasted at the previous discussion at Articles for deletion/Lesbian kiss episode. Siawase (talk) 17:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If there's something wrong with the content of the article, fix it or discuss how to fix it on the talk page. Don't nominate it for deletion. Reach Out to the Truth 17:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - given his comments on the talk page I have to question if Ottre really believes that the article should be deleted or if s/he's just having some sort of tantrum over the scope of the existing list. S/he apparently had no issue with the list when he wanted to add material to it barely two weeks ago. This is a bad-faith nomination and should be closed. Otto4711 (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: The former AfD just closed on 19 november. Even Dr. Delete JBsupreme recognizes this!! I hereby reincorporate every keep vote from the huge last AfD.--Milowent (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2009 (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.