Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2010s


 * 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. KaisaL (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2010s

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Listcruft.TheLongTone (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. IW. (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC) I still believe this is a non sense list. However I do understand the notability of representation which means the best option should be to move it to History of LGBT and animated series, relevant and concise to the points. An example one could follow is History of homosexuality in American film. IW. (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it still has value in its current form. That would be a good example, but that page has very little sourcing and considering that most of the animation on this page is anime, there are very few English sources. For the time being, I'm just reorganizing it into gender identities so its easier to navigate.Historyday01 (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This doesn't challenge my argument at all, if anything, it solidifies it. IW. (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that solidifies it. Lets say that we do make an article specifically about the history of LGBT characters and themes in animated series. Great, that'd be an amazing idea. But I don't see how going from that, to a page which is just about the characters and nothing else (sans a lead paragraph) is nonsensical. Rather than focusing on various aspects of the representation, history, and all that, it focuses squarely on the characters. We have history of animation, which gives info on the medium, but we also have pages that are just lists and focuse solely on which films were released; either by decade, country, etc. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Building off what PanagiotisZois said, I don't think it solidifies it either. We could create an article like that, but I think it should be created while keeping these list pages.Historyday01 (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't believe this is an indiscriminate or trivial list, and given the subject matter I think it's at least mildly insulting to suggest that it is (though I do not believe it's the nominator's intention to be insulting). I believe it's more than appropriate to have a list about this subject matter, something we have had in decades past. It should be well-sourced and this article could use some work in that regard, but it would not be difficult at all to find reliable sources for most of these entries, and the need for improvement is not a valid reason to delete an article. — Hunter Kahn 15:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep though trim out entries that aren't sourced to a third-party. Entries should be either a third-party making the observation, or the creator of the work talking to a third-party about the choice to make the character(s) LGBT as to 100% confirm the listing on here. --M asem (t) 15:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Procedural close The original list of List of animated series with LGBT characters should have been nominated as well and marked with a template, as it's roughly the same, only nominating this amounts to WP:GAMING behavior.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I know we're not supposed to use WP:INTERESTING to support a topic's notability, but I think the nomination is essentially based on WP:NOTINTERESTING. I think the article needs at least a good paragraph of text about the subject, but that can be resolved with normal editing. -- Toughpigs (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep this list meets our criteria for WP:LISTN. This is informative and aides in navigation. The list serves our readers, and that is why we exist. The list was created today and has had no time to breath before being slapped with multiple templates. Lightburst (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, unsurprisingly. First of all, I would not call such a page as "listcruft". Multiple such lists focusing on LGBT characters have existed on Wikipedia for years. And other similar lists which people could describe as arbitrary exist; such as List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication, which is even a featured list. LGBT representation, especially in the past few decades has become a much discussed subject. In fact, while I can't talk much about anime, I have found multiple articles discussing LGBT representation in Western animation from the past few years; such as how it has progressed and improved in the last few years. Thus, it's not like a grouping like List of animated series with LGBT characters is arbitrary, and it does have notability. Moreover, regarding representation of minority characters in media, I'm sure there are other similar examples about, i.e. Black / African-American characters. Having said that, I do kind of where TheLongTone is coming from and a problem somebody could argue this list has. It is a very focused one; concerning LGBT characters, in a specific medium, and in a specific decade. One may ask, why does it have to be this specific? But that's kind of the problem. Obviously having a list with every single LGBT character from every fictional medium would be impossible to manage and navigate. Hence the creation of the aforementioned "LGBT characters in animated series list". But even that list ended up being the single largest one on Wikipedia. On the list's talk page, various options on how to split it were discussed, but this seemed to best and most objective one; rather than separating them by country of origin. Going back to what I said earlier about coverage for the cartoons, I'm sure that that is also something that can be discussed in the lead section and showcase how this kind of list / grouping didn't just randomly pop out of nowhere. Lastly, while the list has issues, a shitton, I don't think that warrants a deletion. There are numerous articles on Wikipedia in an even worse condition, but they're still kept. They have the potential to change and become better; so does this page. Now, I'm not gonna make a false promise and say that I'll single-handedly bring this page to featured list status, but I'm willing to help with it. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia Whataboutism. IW. (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment – This article was a bold split from the main article, List of animated series with LGBT characters, and so is List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2000s, as can be seen in the page history of the main article, and a very brief discussion on the talk page of the main article. Unfortunately, the advice given at split was not followed - To conform with Wikipedia's licensing requirements, which require that all content contributors receive attribution, the page receiving the split material must have an edit summary noting "split content from article name". (Do not omit this step or omit the page name.) A note should also be made in the edit summary of the source article, "split content to article name". The Copied template can also be placed on the talk page of both articles. For further information, refer to the main Copying within Wikipedia guideline. So using the nominator's logic, then all of these articles should be deleted, or in the alternative, be recoginized for what they are, splits from the main article (that didn't follow the information listed at WP:PROSPLIT). Isaidnoway (talk)  23:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Listcruft my foot. (Which other editors put more elegantly.) The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep They get coverage for this, so its a notable thing to list.  D r e a m Focus  23:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The page clearly needs work, but its existence helps with reducing the size of the original page. I think the comment by  Isaidnoway ] is a good one. There should be a summary or description at the beginning of this article. Splitting this off into its own article seems very slapdash as to say the least.[[User:Historyday01|Historyday01 (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Listcruft may be rationale to trim a bit, not to delete. gidonb (talk) 12:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Great. I'm working on List of animated series with left-handed charcters as we speak.TheLongTone (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not promising to keep that one! gidonb (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, perfectly acceptable list, and the subject of reliable sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gleeanon409. I will soon be working on this list to organize it the same as the "List of animated series with LGBT characters: 1990s" and "List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2000s" pages. On the latter page, the sourcing still needs some work, clearly. But, that's a work in progress.Historyday01 (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete, per OP's reasoning. This, along with the other 2 articles need to be improved upon from the source article.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That is the very definition of an article that should be improved rather than deleted. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with Gleeanon409. Loyalmoonie's reasoning is flawed and doesn't recognize the importance of reducing the size of Wikipedia articles, which is the reason this one exists. The article MUST be improved rather than deleted, which is what I am trying to do, currently.Historyday01 (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2020 (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.