Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT characters in video games


 * 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 keeps outnumber the deletes, and there is no inherent reason to delete a list of this type. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

List of LGBT characters in video games

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is not a "list of LGBT characters in video games" but rather an unsourced collection of LGBT themes in video games. A merge is not necessary because there is nothing worth moving from this article. JDDJS (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Automatic  Strikeout  04:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The topic is notable, we have consensus that the topic is notable, and AfD is not cleanup: most characters are sourced in their respective articles and/or video-games; and if some entries lack sources just add sources or delete those entries, not the whole thing. Nothing has changed from the previous deletion discussion, and this new nomination doesn't introduce a new argument so it's redundant.
 * Also "this is not a list of characters but a collection of LGBT themes" is a confusing sentence, given that the list contains descriptions of LGBT characters. Would you mind to explain what you mean, so that we can understand the nomination? Diego (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable subject with reliable sources available. Insomesia (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, noteworthy, but more importantly, educational and encyclopedic and of high value to the site. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep – it definitely needs a lot of clean-up, but every game on the list is notable, and there are sources discussing the characters available. I just added one. —Torchiest talkedits 20:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and counter argument it shouldn't matter which "game" is notable, it should be the character himself. This is a loophole WP:LGBT has been doing for a while now, that should end. Also, it is a list, it is most certainly have no educational value whatsoever. Encyclopedic is false as no Encyclopedia does this.Lucia Black (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, I added a source discussing the character in particular. It should be possible to find sources discussing the characters for plenty of other games on the list, and if sources aren't found for some of them, they can be removed.  I've also already pulled one listing that didn't seem to properly fit the article topic. —Torchiest talkedits 21:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally these list get out of hand, its best not to make them if they're that wide in range. Whats next? List of African-American characters in video games? A source for the character to be notable just to verify that they are LGBT? it's alot more to do then verify that a character is LGBT. at least articles such as LGBT themes in comics has a more concrete encyclopedic, and notable aspect because their not focused on each individual character but rather that a specific character/comic made a difference to be ntoed in that article. This could slide if there were more realted to LGBT themed video games such as yaoi, shonen-ai, and yuri (japanese generes for LGBT) and each character in that series would be notable to have their own article. That would lower the range, and have a clearer focus. then again, multiple characters of the same game would appear, so it would be easier to list video games that have LGBT themes. But LGBT in general from video games may be over-the-top because the relevance of this character can go minor to significantly important. It's not helping anyone other than discovering characters that are LGBT, and that really isn't encyclopedic.Lucia Black (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny that encyclopedic is not a defined term in Wikipedia, so your argument is reduced to "I don't think it's a good idea, but can't really explain why". Diego (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. Creating sub-lists for yaoi, yuri and other genres is a good idea. But that doesn't preclude having also the current list. Diego (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note in response to Lucia Black's suggestion that "This is a loophole WP:LGBT has been doing for a while now": This is nothing specific to WP:LGBT. This is common across most or all of WP:CHAR's list articles. I suspect it's endemic to most "list of fictional X" articles frankly. It's really rare to find a properly sourced list of fictional items. -Thibbs (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Counter-argument to your counter argument: items in list articles are not required to be notable by themselves, only the topic of the list needs to be notable. This is not a loophole, it's the guideline itself which states it (see lists where Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria). Diego (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Counter-argument to the counter-argument's counter argument: Lists where every entry in the list fails the notability criteria only work if there is a finite number of items on the list. It would be madness to have a list of all non-notable dogs that had died of distemper even though canine distemper is a notable topic. The examples listed in WP:CSC are finite. "List of minor Dilbert characters" is limited to the Dilbert universe and "list of minor Paracetamol brands" is limited by real-world commercial pressures. There is little to limit a list of non-notable LGBT characters in video games. Right now, since LGBT-related video games are only some 25 years old the number of notability-lacking entries on this list (96) may not seem unmanageable, but as the years progress and as LGBT becomes more mainstream in our culture this number is only going to grow at a faster rate (e.g. in 2010 alone we see the addition of 11 characters. By 2022 we may have 300 entries. By 2032 maybe 600.). Without notability as an inclusion criterion, this is an unbounded list. The idea that WP:N doesn't apply to the individual entries under CSC#2 doesn't mean much anyway except that the issue of significant coverage can be ignored. Some degree of individual character coverage in RSes is still mandatory because WP:V applies to all parts of the list just as it would to any article. If the topic (LGBT video game characters) is notable then let's write an article on that topic instead of making it into a messy and essentially indiscriminate list. -Thibbs (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, but (and this is a big one) the article needs serious work and very, very soon! The fact that statements like...


 * "One of the characters, named "Jolly Roger" in the level "Jolly Roger's Lagoon," is extremely likely to be a homosexual, due to the way he talks and sways as well as how his voice sounds. He needs Banjo and Kazooie's help in finding his "partner," Merry Maggie Malpass, who appears to be a poorly-dressed transvestite (also having the deepest voice in the game), who states that he/she doesn't want to be late for "Happy Hour" back at the bar, and that Jolly will need "a little relief."
 * ...remain in the article/list is completely insane. How his voice sounds? WTF people? This is WP:OR at its bigoted, inflammatory and stereotyping best. This sort of thing doesn't come anywhere near being encyclopaedic. Endorsing the suggestion that someone can be "classified" as a homosexual because of how they dress, act or talk (without references to anything that even suggests the character might be) is disgraceful. Do I think a list like this might generally be of value, maybe. Do I think there are probably enough references for some of the items to build a notable whole? Probably. But no amount of notability should be able to get us past the fact that at the moment this is basically a giant WP:OR how-to guide for bullies and bigots. Stalwart 111  23:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That example is, as you state, a regular clean up issue which does not need a deletion discussion. AfD is not clean up. Insomesia (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The issue still remains that it is just a giant list that will most likely never end or never have. List of fictional characters that are LGBT in sad media is just overwhelming. This better to be a category more than an actual list. WP:STANDALONE definitely needs to be refined to help with fictional elements or basically anythingbthat is basically more suited as a category. Its basically a list of a fictional element portrayed as LGBT. Encyclopedic may not be clearly defined in wikipedia, but it would also mean "encyclopedic" cant be used either.Lucia Black (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep but needs significant cleanup and likely a refocus on the "topic" of LGBT in video games with the character list as a supporting role. A few opening paragraphs to discuss the nature of LGBT in video games (its acceptance or non-acceptance, emergence, etc.) would help to flesh out this article, and I know there are sources for this based on sources I had to use for a character in Persona 4.  The list, however, is going to need strong sourcing for each entry. Take the example Stalwart gives - without a source, its speculation.  Again, falling back on P4, I know there are sources for specific characters being called out as LGBT, and of course, there's the whole Mass Effect relationship thing as another point. It just needs to be cleaned up and much better sourced. --M ASEM  (t) 14:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You may not realize there is already an article called LGBT themes in video games, which I think covers a lot of what you mention in the first part of your paragraph. As for the second part, I've been culling, trimming, and removing original research and trivial bits, trying to start getting the list to a point where it contains characters that may have some actual coverage. —Torchiest talkedits 15:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware, but I would consider the possibility, depending on how big the list ends up being, of merging the list into that one. At this time though, that doesn't change my keep vote for the list. --M ASEM  (t) 15:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Tentative keep - provided that individual list item notability be made an explicit inclusion criterion per WP:CSC#1 (used for "most of the best lists on Wikipedia"), and listed in an expanded lede. Failing this, merge with LGBT themes in video games. -Thibbs (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The requirement you're looking for is having the work where the character appears be notable (not the character itself, per criterion WP:CSC#2). This is the de-facto standard for lists of fictional items (see List of fictional works in mass media, List of fictional books from periodicals, List of fictional rapid transit stations, List of fictional beverages, List of fictional medicines and drugs, List of Robotech vehicles, List of ships in the Matrix series...). Having each individual item notable by itself is not a requirement in the guideline, and it would cause all of these lists to be virtually empty. With the de-facto criterion (which the current list of characters already satisfies), the list can be kept in check avoiding arbitrary inclusion. Diego (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2012 (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.