Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT characters in modern written 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 No consensus.  Citi Cat   ♫ 21:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

List of LGBT characters in modern written fiction

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unmaintainable list, there are always new books popping up with homosexual or bisexual characters so this list will always be incomplete. It's just a link farm. Also, the standards for inclusion are questionable, for instance, the Lestat de Lioncourt in The Vampire Lestat is on the list even though he never really performed a homosexual act. By those same standards, Kirk and Spock would make the list as well. Delete. - Pocopocopocopoco 01:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - The list doesn't have to be absolutely complete and up-to-date to be valuable and useful. I think it has much value as a navigational resource for those looking for LGBT material; LGBT categories are limited in this area (and rightfully so, as novels should not necessarily be categorized at LGBT for simply including these characters). Additionally, it is useful within the scope of the LGBT WikiProject. And the fact that Lestat shared a bed with Nicky is enough for me. --TAnthony 02:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to some comments below, I would like to reiterate that this list is a useful tool for readers looking for LGBT material/characters. Many of the novels referenced are not appropriate for listing in an LGBT category themselves, and most of the characters listed do not have or need their own articles. And as far as I'm concerned, 10-15% of the population is still a minority and therefore cannot be compared to a proposed "List of heterosexual characters in modern written fiction." Yes, there is more LGBT visibility these days, but I would object to anyone saying it is portrayed as commonly as heterosexuality or whatever. And finally, creating a category is more messy and hard to maintain than a simple, centralized list. --TAnthony 18:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Week Delete: Unmaintainable list, and per WP:NOT. Tiptoety 05:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per TAnthony --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  05:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete or change to category Category category. what more needs to be said? DBZROCKS   Its over 9000!!!  12:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: A category won't tell you the name of the character, the books they were in, or any other information. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Most characters don't have or need individual articles to place in such a category, and anyway this kind of info is usually more appropriate in list form; the Category Police do not like too many fictional character categories. --TAnthony 17:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And isn't creating a category more messy and hard to maintain than a simple, centralized list? I think the pro-category people are just pro-deletion. --TAnthony 18:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Categoryify Fee Fi Foe Fum 12:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: 1) Completeness or lack thereof is not a reason to delete a list. 2) "Link farms" are generally collections of external links, which this is not. 3) Standards for inclusion on the list should definitely be spelled out and adhered to. 4) "Performing a homosexual act" - please read homosexual and learn why that is not what defines someone as LGBT. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is going to be an absurdly long and unmanageable list, but if there is a rationale for it to exist, then there must also be its counterpart lists- List of X characters in modern written fiction, such that X= heterosexual, asexual, and probably a dozen other labels that I haven't thought of.  I think you can have a list of X characters when X is a small or unique set (List of eleven-eyed cannibals in modern written fiction!), but LGBT is a large enough set (something like 10-15% of the population?) that it makes this somewhere between non-notable and useless.Deltopia 13:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, 10-15% of the population is still a minority. --TAnthony 18:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Being LGBT is a far more defining characteristic than being heterosexual. Heterosexuality is the "norm" and defines the vast majority of people, so there would be no point having such a list. A list of asexual characters would probably work. -- Beloved Freak  16:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Being openly LGBT isn't as unique as it used to be, to misuse an absolute adjective. Also, the list is defined as LGBT characters in modern written fiction, not as notable LGBT characters in modern written fiction -- so won't it be a magnet for every bit character who implies non-traditional heterosexuality?  If being LGBT in itself connoted notability, I think this would be different, but I don't think we can say that.  If Joe McGuillicuddy, a background character in a Tom Clancy novel, gets a second line of description in the sequel that reveals that he identifies as LGBT (or otherwise meets whatever criteria we're going to have to make up here), and Joe then proceeds to do nothing else for the rest of the novel, he doesn't belong in the encyclopedia, and he's going to wind up in this article.  The editor who puts him here will be right, because that's what the list asks for, but the list itself, I think, is wrong. Deltopia 19:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Surely then the solution is not deleting the list but defining strict criteria for inclusion in the list, and sticking to them. -- Beloved Freak  22:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - there are many lists on Wikipedia which will never be complete and final because new things are invented, new works of art are create, new people become famous etc. This is not a reason not to have the list. It's not a link farm. As for questionable standards of inclusion, these could be decided upon and explicitly stated at the top of the list, simple enough. Ensuring that reliable sources are used for character's sexuality means that questionable entries won't be included. Categorising the list would leave all of the above concerns unaddressed, leaving it as a list means entries can be sourced & explained. Each entry could have an explanation why they are considered LGBT (if not obvious) & backed up by a reliable source. -- Beloved Freak  16:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * delete. Wikipedia should not a place for unending lists like this.  Show me any encyclopaedia, anywhere else, that has random lists such as this.  Wikipedia has categories to do this sort of thing and that is what should be used.  B1atv 16:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Who cares what anywhere else has? WP isn't anywhere else! :P --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  17:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Britanica can't have lists like this due to space restrictions.  Wikipedia doesn't have that issue. --Oakshade 21:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete a potentially infinitely long list with vague standards for inclusion does not belong here as per WP:NOT Dlabtot 18:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per Deltopia. Being heterosexual absolutely defines who and what I am, in exactly the way that being homosexual or asexual would, to say that being homosexual is more defining is ridiculous. Jcuk 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment OK, fair point. I didn't mean that heterosexuality is not a defining part of one's individual identity, of course one's sexuality is equally defining whatever the orientation. I just meant that it's not as notable a characteristic as homosexuality when describing groups of people due to the fact that there are far greater numbers of people identifying as heterosexual than as LGBT. And it could be argued that there are fewer incidences of homosexuality in fiction than in real life for various reasons, making it even more unusual/notable. Not really sure I'm getting my point across... -- Beloved Freak  22:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Inclusion of homosexual, bisexual and transgendered characters in significant roles in fictions seems a notable and encyclopedic topic as it is reflective of social change. There are doubtless plenty of reliable sources that discuss this from a sociological perspective. All LGBT characters is a bit broad an inclusion criteria and I think it might be better if this list were restricted to principal characters. Using a list rather than a category allows the significance of the character to be explained. WjBscribe 20:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions.   — WjBscribe 20:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   — WjBscribe 20:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's a very encyclopedic and relevant list. --Oakshade 21:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Tiptoety, Deltopia, etc. -- Orange Mike 22:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete there might be a point in a list of principal protagonists where the sexuality was critically important to the plot--limited to notable novels. this is a odd mixture, and needs to be deleted as such, and possibly redefined and carefully re-created. I don't usually support deleting lists because of some questionable content, but most of this one is questionable, as is the basic criteria and assumptions. DGG (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as per TAnthony, SatyrTN and Belovedfreak. I understand DGG's concerns, but I feel they can better be addressed by enforcing notability standards for inclusion, as suggested by Belovedfreak and User:WJBscribe above. — OwenBlacker 17:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Question I keep coming back to this. I usually look at wikipedia as a reference -- I have a question in mind, come here, look up the subject, and find an answer.  Most encyclopedias seem to work like that, at least from my POV.  So, I guess what I wonder is, what question does this list answer?  What research need will this list meet?  And if those answers are both negative, does this list really belong in an encyclopedia? Deltopia 20:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP is not just strictly for Question-Answer. I actually discovered this list in the first place when researching LGBT literature and found it a helpful resource, which is part of the reason I'm defending it so strongly. Many of these portrayals are contained in novels which are not strictly LGBT-related and thus not categorized as such, but are notable to an LGBT audience based on time period of the work, content etc. The LGBT content may not be accessible on WP in any other way. I really don't see the objection, it's just a list. --TAnthony 20:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I had a good long comment here, but TAnthony answered all the questions I had at the top, and so I am deleting it and will just say, if I can get a real sense of how people are going to use, maintain, and source this list, I can't object to it.(N.B.: This is the best deletion debate I've seen in a while. Awesome arguments.  Mad props.) Deltopia 22:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep as per TAnthony, SatyrTN,Belovedfreak and User:WJBscribe. This list is useful, especially since the same information cannot be collected in another way. Trying to achieve this with categories is misguided and messy. LGBT content is notable because it is still not the norm, and if I was writing a paper on the development of LGBT themes in literature this list would be essential. TheRhani 20:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. A number of people have said let's keep the list and we'll just enforce strict standards of inclusion. Even if we ignore the fact that the list will still always be incomplete, the nature of wikipedia as well as the nature of this particular list would make it very difficult to enforce any standards. With a category, it will be much more accurate as every time a category is added to a particular character, many people who have that character on their watchlist and are knowledgeable about the story and that character can have their say and a consensus can be developed. I believe that the miniscule benefits of having this as a list are far outweighed by the large benefits of having this as a category. Pocopocopocopoco 02:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of these characters do not have or need their own articles, so your suggestion would basically eliminate this information. Even assuming they all had articles, enforcing standards is easier in a single list than a multitude of articles. Additionally, I'm not sure I see what you believe are the "miniscule benefits" of a list and "large benefits" of a category. And as someone noted above, any list is theoretically incomplete because books are always being written, people are always being born ... since when is incompleteness a reason for deletion? Would the naysayers be satified if we renamed it "List of notable LGBT characters in modern written fiction"? --TAnthony 15:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Are there any "lists of X characters in modern Y fiction" such that X and Y are anything? LGBT doesn't seem like it's such a special category in this instance; a "list of eleven-eyed characters in modern radio drama" (for instance) would face many of the same challenges as this list, and I would like to see how they handle it... Deltopia 17:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh heh, surely you don't think this list is as on the same level as "left-handed pirates in opera"? LGBT people are still a minority (10-15%?) and thus notably listed; the number of portrayals is growing but still small enough to be manageable. Similarly, I think List of black superheroes is a reasonable and notable list, but a List of black characters in modern fiction or whatever would probably be overboard. TAnthony 21:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'd like to note that Categories, lists, and series boxes suggests that lists and categories are not "in competition with each other" and that "One should not be deleted in favor of the other ... The "category camp" shouldn't dismantle Wikipedia's list-based navigation system, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system." I stand by the fact that the category method will not work beecause of the lack of individual character articles, but WP:CLS also notes advantages/disadvantages that apply to this list: it notes that "Categories are difficult to maintain" and "Lists can include items for which there are yet no articles," among others. And I see no applicable advantages for a category and disadvantages for a list. Take a look. --TAnthony 15:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe my point for the advantage of a category in this particular case is valid in that there will be more scrutiny given to additions to the category by people more familar with the material. Take for example Lestat above. It's controversial whether or not he would be considered bisexual. As a category, the LGBT category would be added to the Lestat article and it would undergo scrutiny with people very familiar with Lestat and the Vampire novels and they might remove the category or come to a consensus on whether it should be added. Pocopocopocopoco 00:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You make a reasonable point, but I think it is far outweighed by the fact that most of these characters, unlike Lestat, do not have articles. Plus, as these are fictional characters, I don't think we have to obsess too much about the appropriateness of listing each one because there's nothing libelous about it or whatever. Perhaps short blurbs explaining the LGBT context and rationale for listing the character should be included as well. TAnthony 01:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete let's apply the same standards to all articles. Delete as listcruft. From my experience in the video games wikiproject, lists like this do not belong in Wikipedia. That LGBT is a fashionable topic, especially among Wikipedians, should not matter. User:Krator (t c) 02:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I can accept a debate on notability, but calling this "listcruft" and LGBT topics "fashionable" is just insulting. It seems like you're comparing this list to the deleted List of cars in Project Gotham Racing 2, which is like comparing a novel to a post-it note, and ridiculous. TAnthony 22:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And for the record, WP:LISTCRUFT notes that "the perception that an article is listcruft can be a contributing factor to someone voting for deletion, but it may not be the sole factor." TAnthony 22:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Per more editors than I can reasonably mention. This is exactly the kind of thing that Wikipedia can do so well. And should do. I think those editors that believe that lists and "In popular culture" articles don't belong here are still thinking of a print encyclopedia, and that's a very limiting belief. As for this list being incomplete, that is not a reason to delete. Using that argument, one could delete much of what is in WP as incomplete. To me, the term listcruft is another word for IDONTLIKEIT. And as several others have said, categories  can't include items for which articles don't exist, and not every entry has, or should have, a separate article. And categories can't have short blurbs as to why the item belongs in the list or what's particularly significant about the item.  To the argument that there should then be a "list of heterosexual characters....", the response is that since heterosexuality is assumed in mainstream fiction (and in most things), a list of alternative sexuality identified or related characters (especially in heterosexual works that are not necessarily marketed to the LGBT community) is actually very encyclopedic and provides a service to the readers looking for information organized in a way they can use. Isn't that what we are here for? — Becksguy 11:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * One last comment - I was looking through some other lists (and their AfDs), and realized that unless we are sourcing each entry on this list with third party WP:V sources, it's essentially original research. Meaning, if I look in Time magazine and find on page 17 it refers to "Bill McGillicuddy, the gay person in the new Tom Clancy novel," then I should include it in this list.  However, if I read through the new Tom Clancy novel looking for LGBT characters, that is almost the very definition of Original Research. From glancing at the list as it stands now, it is all OR except for about 13 lines, and all the rest needs to go. Deltopia 17:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I would agree that it needs to be sourced. I would ask that if you do remove the unsourced entries before someone gets round to them, please copy them to the talk page. -- Beloved Freak  18:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree. Based on my understanding of the WP guidelines, reading Tom Clancy's book and noting that Clancy says on page 17 of his hypothetical book that Bill McGillicuddy is a young, single, and gay police officer in the LAPD, and then referencing that fact in this list is not original research. It's using a primary source that anyone with access can verify. The reliable source in this example would be the book citation. Whether it's notable enough is another matter. However, original research would be making an interpretation, reaching a conclusion, or making a synthesis based on those and/or other sources.  For example, using that fact (and maybe others) to reach a conclusion that the LAPD's view of gay cops in that novel's fictional universe has become positive would be original research, unless reliably sourced.  — Becksguy 04:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Au Contraire It depends on the entry, anyway. I haven't ever read anything about Lestat, but judging by the nom, there is some analysis of the character that led someone to declare him LGBT.  So, in your example, use of primary sources would be appropriate, but in Lestat's (or worse, Kirk and Spock's) case, the interpretation of the character and classifying him LGBT strikes me as OR.  And again, this goes back to how we classify someone as LGBT.  If Bill Mac wants to sleep with Humphrey, is he LGBT?  Or does he have to follow through and -actually- sleep with him?  What if he has a coming out and lives openly as a homosexual just to annoy his parents, although he doesn't really find himself attracted to men?  What if what if what if...?  I followed User:SatyrTN's advice and looked at the homosexual article, but that just tells me that different people identify themselves with different tags as they reach that point in their psychological evolution as a person -- using that as an article criterion strikes me as completely unworkable.  (Further, the Malleability of Homosexuality paragraph at the end of the article makes the situation even less concrete.)  Anyhow, without a solid, uncontroversial list of criteria, I don't think we can keep the list at all... (Blanket disclosure: I apologize if, through careless wording or ignorance of the issues, anything I've typed has offended anyone or trivialized anything anyone is sensitive about -- I'm largely ignorant of a lot of the issues that this segment of society faces, but I know there are a lot of burdens that the LGBT people bear, and I am sorry if my ignorance has been one of them.) Deltopia 18:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - the problem of classifying someone as LGBT can be addressed by a) a clear lead paragraph which states explicitly the criteria for inclusion on the list. These criteria can be reached by consensus and based on definitions of lesbian, gay, bisexual etc, and can be drawn from the main articles. b) a section (eg. if the list was made into a table) for comments which could say why the character is considered (by independent sources) to be LGBT. The sexual orientation of many characters will of course be open to interpretation, but as long as it's the interpretation of reliable, verifiable, notable independent sources, then it's not original research. -- Beloved Freak  20:55, 3 October 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.