Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT characters in film, radio, and TV fiction


 * 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 KEEP. The deletion arguments below are either WP:VAGUEWAVES, addressable by normal editing (i.e., determining whether this should be split into separate lists for each medium, or whether characters who are part of notable works but don't have standalone articles should be included), or otherwise substantively rebutted by the keep !voters. The nom should also be advised that continuing to repeat his disagreement with everyone who posts does not strengthen his arguments nor does it do wonders for building (or "changing") consensus. postdlf (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

List of LGBT characters in film, radio, and TV fiction

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable Bread Ninja (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  15:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  15:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  15:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Not notable? I could be wrong, but it seems like this is a topic that has been extensively covered in reliable sources.  Every time there's a gay character in any significant work of fiction, it's big news -- especially if he or she kisses someone.  Powers T 15:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  15:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  15:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you prove that? And that's specific characters of a specific series....it's not general unlike what this list is trying to portray itself. This is a list of LGBT characters in almost all media (not including written literature and video games). It's rather WP:LISTCRUFT. If it was a general topic about LGBT characters in TV and film and radio, then that would be different, but there is no such article, so why have a list of it?Bread Ninja (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * LGBT themes in speculative fiction covers a subset of the topic. Powers T 17:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * not really....thats a section off of LGBT characters in speculative fiction....so it would have to be more specific. Has to be specifically meant for the list. it's like making a list of LGBT characters in radio and use an article LGBT comedy with the section of radio.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - I point the nominator to these searches for starters. Lady  of  Shalott  16:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Like i said....there needs to be an article to support this notability. It's not all connected, just a giant list of characters that happen to be LGBT. it doesn't matter how much study of it unless there's an article to support this. The least covers fictional characters in general, not from a specific company, or such. If there was "LGBT themes in radio, TV and film" and this would be more of a split. But no....instead this focuses on mainly on a list of specific fictional characters that happen to be part of LGBT and in radio and/or films and/or TV.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I struck through your second !vote (your nom obviously counts as one); it could confuse someone scanning through quickly into thinking it represented additional support for deletion instead of just a restatement of your views. postdlf (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has plenty of lists, there is no need for it to take the form of a prose-oriented article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Also anyone can do a google search...you have to weed out everything that isn't relevant. And it's more than just having the words "Gay characters" and "in [insert name of media]" that happen to be books and assume they're studies. I thought you actually brought in specific sources.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, time was limited earlier, but I think it should be obvious there are books relevant to the topic. I will be in and out, but will try to add listings of specific references as I can. Just how much WP:BEFORE did you do anyway?  Lady  of  Shalott  18:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * most of it..id ont see anything i didn't do....let's look at this logically....we could make an incoherent list all based on fictional characters being LGBT without even making a base article. Either that, or split them into 3 (actually just 2, radio doesn't even show up much at all) which just doesn't help at all....and you're only look up of studies. I mean, are we forgetting this is a list article? not of any studies or other?Bread Ninja (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * i just mentioned it as an option, but regardless....i do think it could be deleted and should, sure its turned down a notch. Studies of LGBT aren't exactly fitting into the list criteria. I just want you guys to separate studies such as articles like LGBT themes in comics from list of characters from media in general (instead of characters that appear in a certain series or a number of series). you're mainly focused on how many studies there are, but are you actually thinking this will be useful and coherent enough to justify a list of those characters? in fact List of LGBT characters in comics redirects to LGBT themes in comics. And i know it's not exactly the best example for this, but this is pretty much close to WP:NOT.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Bread Ninja, please strike your second delete. The nomination is the first one, and you don't get to say delete twice. Lady  of  Shalott  18:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Useful navigational tool per WP:LISTPURP. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment i don't have anything against list in general, just list as one-sided and completely vague as this one that seems to be made up of one focus (without any other real connection) which is LGBT. IF there was a study of African-American fictional (i'm pretty sure there would be somewhere) or Asian characters, would that justify a list of fictional African-American or Asian characters? But no, for now, the article barely has any sources at all....For navigational purposes i also thought that at first, but i checked through them, and most of these already redirect to other list articles. it's not a great navigational use. Not to mention i ran into one (potentially more) that aren't "fictional" Michael Alig. Navigational purposes? just because it has that purpose, does not mean it's fulfilling it.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - The occurrences of LGBT characters in works of popular fiction is a subject that is often discussed in both a news and academic context by a large number of reliable sources and is therefore notable. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Prove it...make an article specifically on radio, TV, and films all at once....find a third party list of them...otherwise...a list finding a source for each individual character is going to make this list completely incoherent.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You're trying to write this off as an independent article. Regardless still needs proper sourcing. And, needs to be a lot more coherent. But i don't think you see this list for what it truly is....a list... a list of characters from random series. A list from random series from the range of Films, and Tv series and potentially radio. remove LGBT and we have nothing....but this list has films, TV and radio merged together, and for what reason? For navigational purposes categories actually do a better job.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really; categories can't tell you the name of the specific work in which a character appears, for instance. Powers T 21:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Split - I do believe there may be viable stand-alone lists out of this, but to have clear inclusion criteria and reliable sources, one would have to separate films, tv and radio character lists. It would make clean-up and maintenance easier that way. Right now it's not clear what suffices for inclusion, and there are certainly enough films and TV characters to warrant separate list per WP:SALAT.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment the article is still rather broad. We're going to list every single character that is LGBT that appears in TV, film, and radio (even if split). A more beneficial article would be LGBT themes in TV, LGBT themes in films and LGBT themes in radio. Stuff that we can actually find proper sourcing and having a focus. WP:SALAT is a very good choice, as it still makes this "too Specific" and "too broad". Or another more beneficial List of would List of LGBT TV series or List of LGBT Films etc. etc. etc. You know, articles that won't be too broad, yet mainly on one focus while LGBT taken more seriously (instead of making a list of LGBT characters that aren't potentially notable {yet somehow the topic itself is which in case a main article would be best}).Bread Ninja (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Basically what I'm saying is that this is highly subjective. Protagonist, or minor appearance, as long as it's a fictional character that's LGBT, they can make it into the list with little to no effort at all. here's something from WP:SALAT Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy spelled out in What Wikipedia is not, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the "list of shades of colors of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge.Bread Ninja (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Not that unusual of a list. Meets our list guidelines as mentioned above.  BLP concerns, if any, should be addressed individually based on existing sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * How? i mean, i'm getting a lil tired of the voting format, but without much of a defense. The only one who did put much of an argument was an anonymous IP. THe list is a bit odd for various reasons.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as written. LGBT characters in shows are definitely notable, but that should be its own article, I'm not seeing the use of a list. It's entirely too broad a scope combined with incompatibilities with other demarcations—as Lists of LGBT figures in fiction and myth demonstrates, there's some serious organization issues, with this list overlapping with two others and then others such as List of made for television films with LGBT characters seemingly spun off and separated. Why are apparently non-notable characters mentioned here? If they don't have their own article, it seems unlikely they are relevant (perhaps article prose would demonstrate otherwise, but then we're back to the first issue.) It's also entirely unreferenced, with some bizarre inclusions that appear to be wishful thinking, or perhaps just vandalism—I see Jack Sparrow is there, but there's nothing in the article about that and I couldn't find any sources besides "the actor thinks all his characters are". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The scope of the list is just far too broad. Additionally, most of the entries on the list have no third-party sourcing to verify their inclusion in the list and most of the entires aren't even notable. And finally, for much the same reasons that the lists of characters by superpowers were deleted, this list is in violation of WP:NOTE as the list is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations of loosely associated topics. (Articles for deletion/Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability, Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can fly, Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can manipulate plants, Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can manipulate superpowers, and Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can manipulate weather) —Farix (t &#124; c) 19:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Different situation here. You can easily find sources for all of these.  See below for my proof of that.   D r e a m Focus  17:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I am amused by the various dichotomies and double-binds presented as arguments for deletion; the characters are not notable, so the list should be deleted, but if they were notable enough to have articles then the list should be deleted because categories would be better. And it should be deleted because it's too broad? One rather wonders how a 'List of transsexual characters in etc.' and a 'List of lesbian etc.' would fare at AfD... --Gwern (contribs) 22:40 17 August 2011 (GMT)
 * Comment that would still fall under "non-encyclopedic" as Farix has stated. The list is too broad, even if split into 1 individual media, and holds non-notable characters, and it's more of the list itself not notable. Your reason for keep is what exactly?Bread Ninja (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And you exemplify the double-bind with your comment. Sheesh. It's a normal list (and better than most). Too broad even if split! Wow. --Gwern (contribs) 17:20 18 August 2011 (GMT)


 * Delete per WP:DIRECTORY and WP:SALAT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I have a thought, how does List of Notable LGBT characters in... sound? In the list could be "Notable for:" with references added. There are books about firsts in LGBT people that involve characters that would be proper to put in the list for example, for that to happen though the list would be narrowed down to only include ones that pass the notability guidelines for inclusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment That's still a lil iffy....characters in general to focus on one element is just non-encyclopedic to me. There's still WP:NOT DIRECTORY.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - if this is random, everything is so. This is sourceable, based on lots of scholarship and general-interest articles available online. The 'delete votes' appear to be of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT variety. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment it's more than "random". I can see why someone would make this article (regardless was the reason was worthy of making it or not). Still, it's not that great of navigational page and not that search worthy. It's not about idontlikeit, it's about limiting the lists to more relevant topics. And again, scholarships would be more for a main article, not a list. As for general interest, than please prove it, there is very little sources here. For now, saying it "can" be sourced isn't going to cut it. Anyone can say that and once the AFD is over, what will you do?Bread Ninja (talk) 00:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: There's a couple reasons for this. While the topic is probably notable, it is extremely broad. Nor is it a navigational list like List of Fish. It purports to do more than what a category could do by putting multiple classifications on them rather than the simple alphanumeric listing in List of Fish. Also, while it is extremely broad, it as also arbitrarily focused. It includes many major media types but excludes print media and video games with no rhyme or reason. Film and TV have a basic similarity, but radio just throws a monkey wrench into it because one asks then why video games aren't included if its audio-visual medium? Finally, most of the info here is unverified original research; since this cannot be navigational list, it fails that. 陣  内 Jinnai 03:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Canvassing - Is there canvassinggoing on regarding this discussion? Lady  of  Shalott  04:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a rule against peopl einviting to this discussion? A moderator suggested it to me before when there was an important discussion that wasn't getting enough views. I don't see the problem. It's not like i'm telling them to delete. that's of their own free will.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Normally it is okay to inform editors in connection with the subject (those who edited the page, or members of a project that might show intrest) yes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That does not appear to be the situation here, though. Lady  of  Shalott  15:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * oh yeah, like if anyone would notify a random editor personally into their page? For the record, i invited people who i recently had discussions with because those were the ones i knew were active. The Farix specifically for his significant contributions before (not related to AfDs) And as for the others i was still thinking of who to invite, and they just came by. I do know someone who would mostlikely vote delete yet i haven't invited him. I think there's enough. It's not about how many votes there are but how strong the vote is.Bread Ninja (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Were they invited in because they'd be likely to vote the same way the guy inviting them did? If so, that's canvassing.   D r e a m Focus  17:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have never interacted with Bread Ninja in any AfD to my knowledge, so he/she would as far as I know have no indication of what opinion I would give. I also found the AfD by looking at his recent contribs, so I was going to end up here with or without the notice anyhow, if it makes you feel better. I believe Bread Ninja was just trying to solicit opinions from people in a separate editing community; however in the future it probably would be better to hold off on the notifications besides related wikiprojects, etc. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Perfectly valid list article. Gay magazines and other media sources surely cover this.  I'd be surprised if no one published a book talking about gay characters in notable media.   D r e a m Focus  17:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * To find sources just search for the name of the series, the character, and the word "gay". Simple.  The first entry is about Sam from Caprica.  The first of the 20 news results I find, has that source questioning the creators of the show, and they explaining how they decided to make him gay.  Not that difficult to confirm any information someone questions as true.   D r e a m Focus  17:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Prove it. add them in yourself.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would I do that? I found the first thing on the list easily enough, and I'm certain the rest wouldn't be a problem. But you don't need to confirm every single item on a list article.   D r e a m Focus  11:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I do not agree with the nominator's statement that this is not notable, it certainly does not currently cite enough sources--but this is a topic that has been examined in popular media and academia (see here and here for examples), so it is a little different than a hypothetical "List of left-handed Irishmen in fiction". Mark Arsten (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment the topic itself? i think the topic you're referring to is more general than what the list is. For example, list of left handed Irish could be in question if there was a "History of Left-handed Irish in Ireland". I'm not against "LGBT themes in [insert media]".Bread Ninja (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply to Comment I honestly don't see the problem here. The existence of a list article without an article on the broader concept is certainly not ideal, but that is more of an argument as to why we should create a new article, rather than delete this one. I just read WP:NOTTVGUIDE, which states that "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic". So I don't see where the existence of this article fall afoul of Wikipedia's rules. (Unless your argument is that this page is so poorly written that it is bringing shame on the project? But that's a judgment call, I suppose. Carry on then...) Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The category gets coverage, therefore its notable. If people started writing news articles about Left-handed Irish in Ireland then it'd be notable to coverage as well.   D r e a m Focus  11:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * @Arsten: Because the list itself is trying to put itself in the gaze of a main article for the excuse of listing every single LGBT character (regardless if notable or not, regardless of how relevant the characters role was in the given TV series/Film they appear in). As for the given link you gave it doesn't say "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic". In fact it's not remotely related to that (WP:NOTTVGUIDE is relating to catalogs). This is still against WP:NOTDIRECTORY. i can't see this list escape deletion unless it doesn't affect WP:DIRECTORY (which the only way it can occur if it turns into a more stricter list such as List of historical notable LGBT characters in film, TV series and radio which would rather easily turn into a main article like History of LGBT characters in film, TV series and radio.


 * @dream focus. that's not really a valid argument, there are hundreds of "notable" categories out there that don't get turned into a list article.Bread Ninja (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and possibly split - the topics of "LGBT characters/themes in X medium" are clearly notable, as pointed out by LtPowers, LadyofShalott and Scapler above. The current article is, as Bread Ninja has noted, not perfect, and might be better as split daughter list articles of "LGBT themes in X medium" pages or as the first draft of potential "LGBT themes in X medium" pages, but I do not feel that the deletion arguments of WP:NOEFFORT, WP:UGLY, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC should hold any weight here. --Malkinann (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the list itself is important (even if split) just because it "relates" to the topic. This still falls under WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It seems like the topic is being avoided. Also note, "themes" and "characters" aren't the same thing.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep . and split. The criterion for lists is being useful to the readers, in finding related articles. The list of important characters in notable works with Wikipedia articles is finite and discriminate, as discriminate as the articles themselves.  It will of course grow, as there are more notable works published  (and as more of the older ones get articles--though I suspect actually  most notable older ones with LGBT characters already have articles.)  DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment so is everyone going to ignore WP:NOTDIRECTORY? Also, you also seemed hook on the idea of if the topic in general is notable a list of all individual characters is also notable. It's not the same thing.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and split. It's a targeted concept that gets a lot of scholarship. Not indiscriminate. Worthy of an index to all our notable articles, so long as the sexual orientation of those characters can be verified. I know the list is full of unverified entries, but I have zero doubt that we can verify some or most, and remove the others if necessary. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * that's the problem it will be a never ending list. It's a very difficult list (even if split). And again, it's not about being confident in our own opinionb ut to verify what we can.still....WP:NOTDIRECTORY....Bread Ninja (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per sourcability and notability for inclusion on the list as shown by examples above, and by the sheer number of bluelinks that lead back to those many sourced articles listed. That a list may never be complete is not a valid reason to dismiss the list.  WP:NOTDIRECTORY inapplicable as this is not a list non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. Does not violate WP:NOR as the information on the list is verifiably objective and not subjective nor synthesis.  The list's discriminate inclusion criteria are clear: "a list of gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender characters in film, radio, and TV". Being discriminate meets the criteria set for such in WP:LIST. Does not violate WP:SALAT as it is NOT too general or too broad in scope have little value. Specifically, as a valuable information source, it meets WP:LISTPURP. Per WP:STAND, the shows and films listed meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect encyclopedic article in the English Wikipedia or are otherwise verifiable as a member of the listed group. Splitting can be discussed on article's talk page.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not about WP:NOR (though it could affect the entries that don't have an article, to verify that they have been confirmed part of LGBT. and i still think WP:NOTDIRECTORY is plenty relevant as it is loosely connected (again assuming LGBT "themes" in media is the same as the list). The list is going to list every single character (again regardless of how relevant their role was, or regardless of how notable the characters are, regardless if the series/film they appear on focuses on the LGBT theme) and could have multiple characters over the same series. This is something a category Easily takes care of. Simply saying it's not too broad doesn't prove anything,considering the only limit there is to this list is what media there in (which is pretty broad already). Also the point isn't that the Series they're from are notable to have their own article. If the list itself focused on the series more than the character than that would be a much easier list to handle and a lot less broad as well as it would only have one entry each per series.


 * The list isn't focused on the series they're from (reading the title that is). As for the criteria of WP:STAND, i must say that the criteria itself needs proper clarification as the examples it gives aren't really that great list articles to use in case someone wants to mirror them (one of them isn't even a stand-alone list). For now, the criteria is a lil off as it makes itself believe that any stand-alone list is notable. However i suppose the list COULD be kept IF the list focused on characters that appeared in series that focused on LGBT themes (instead of any character out there that happen to be LGBT in a broad list).


 * Denying it's not too broad seems to be a bit drastic if you're only going to focus on the "series" part that doesn't seem to be truly relevant to the list. Just reading the name you can see how broad it really is. And if it were to be split, it would still be pretty broad of a subject. The list seems to sustain itself only because of the series themselves, not because they are LGBT characters.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Again WP:OTHERCRAP. consensus can change. But i think the #1 reason it was kept is because of every entry had a source, which could sustain notability in general for any article, but still a list of loosely associated elements, a bit of an odd list that doesn't seem that practical at all (similar to this one) for navigation. And its not practical at all if they only reference the entries but not the list itself.Bread Ninja (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically what I'm saying is the list is relying on the fact that it lists notable series they're from as well but tries to say "LGBT in film, TV, and radio" is what makes it notable, because we thinking the topic of LGBT is the same. It's like saying Vampires in television is the same as listing List of Vampire characters in television.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Our large lists of this nature appear somewhat narrowly focused in scope, regardless of the notability of the topic. List of fictional Jews exists, as does List of Asian Jews, List of LGBT Jews and List of LGBT people. There are no List of fictional females, List of Asian females, List of fictional Africans or List of fictional muslims. Make of that what you will!--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. and you're not making much of a point. those could be challenged just as much as this one is.Bread Ninja (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of them have been, and were kept. List of fictional Jews was in AFD twice and ended in Keep both times.  Any list whose subject gets coverage for having the specific characteristics of that list will be kept.   D r e a m Focus  11:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a list non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, as the list has defined criteria for inclusion. And having clearly defined inclusion criteria, the list is is not "loosely associated elements" as you repeatedly assert and is practical for a reader's navigation.  And your also repeatedly demand that you personally want citations in the list itself, I wish to lead you to the applicable guideline which states  "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation", which sentence means that third party references do not HAVE to be in any article, just so long as they DO exist and can be found by anyone searching for them. As Dream Focus explained earlier, sources can be easily found. And as this list also contains mostly bluelinked items that lead readers to encyclopedic articles with those citations, notability requirements are met. But a wish that each list everywhere on Wikipedia should be themselves be filled with the sources from the encyclopedic articles that link to those list's bluelinks, perhaps that wish might be better discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lists) and guideline then changed. And then, and if guideline is changed, perhaps a bot can be created that will copy the hundreds of thousands of references from all over the project and appropriately move them to the hundreds of thousands of list items everywhere. However, before you suggest that editors personally supply the thousands of man hours required for such a task, or have a bot created for that purpose, I wish to respectfully repeat that gudideline has not chnagd yet. notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 14:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Not true, you still treat this list the same way as the topic itself. Therefore you're looking for something more general than the list itself. Regardless...bringing up WP:LISTPURP isn't really helping your defense at all....it just gives purpose to all lists in general out there. The list isn't a general study, the navigation is more related to "series" over "LGBT characters". the purpose of the list doesn't fit with what the list actually does.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Defense? No. Explanation and clarification? Yes.
 * If one is to treat the list the same way as the topics listed, it is imprudent to ignore the applicable notability guideline which clearly and specifically states "notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation", or to ignore the fact that the existance of sources has already been explained very carefully. Any personal interpretation of the intention of the list fails, as it is hubris to assume that one can know the mind of the list's creator or the many minds of those who have edited it since its creation.  As the list leads to both various film and television series and LGBT characters, WP:LISTPURP is served. While perhaps the lede could use some expansion and tweaking, such would be a matter for talk page discussion and regular editing... but not deletion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK....the more you use LIstPurp, the more vague your "explanation" gets as it seems to be a "key" part. And you just proved this is "X of Y". cross categorization.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BLUDGEONing others for their offering reasonable and polite responses when disagreeing with you is not helpful. However, you have convinced me its time to leave this conversation and trust it will be decided by someone able to separate the wheat from the chaff.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You just fail to clarify between guidelines. I just think you misunderstand. You use the list as separate from "LGBT" and "TV, FILM, and RAdio" instead of treating them together.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * ???FWIW, the ed. above has also raised what I think is likely to be be a question relating in some way to his arguments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists.  DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 21 August 2011 (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.