Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of feature films with LGBT characters


 * 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. This was a widely attended AfD with a lot of strong opinions. The votes were evenly split 50/50 between keep and delete, with a few other votes to merge. No one is seriously challenging the notability of this list since the topic is discussed in multiple reliable sources, so that cannot be a valid rationale to delete the list. The notion that the list duplicates an existing category is not a valid reason for deletion per WP:NOTDUP. Some delete voters assert that the list is indiscriminate, unmaintainable, and not easily accessible, but there is no clear consensus that any of these are the case. The word "indiscriminate" is defined as "done at random or without careful judgment", and I can't see how this applies here. Additionally, the language at WP:INDISCRIMINATE doesn't seem to apply to this list either, as some Keep voters point out. Regarding the maintainability/accessibility argument, this discussion produced a plethora of alternative structures that could improve the situation, including: Therefore, while there is clearly agreement that this list needs a lot of work to be improved, there is no convincing policy-based rationale for deletion. I'd encourage all interested parties to start discussions at Talk:List of feature films with LGBT characters and put forth proposals on how the maintainability and accessibility of this list can be improved, using this AfD discussion as a fertile breeding ground for ideas.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 18:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Splitting the list into multiple lists by decade (List of feature films with LGBT characters in the 1980s, ...)
 * Splitting the list into multiple lists by sexual orientation (List of feature films with lesbian characters, ...)
 * Limiting the list to a more narrow scope, such as feature films with only LGBT characters that play leading roles in the film.

List of feature films with LGBT characters

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

List with significant maintainability problems, effectively duplicative of other content. This was conceived as a one-stop list of all films with LGBT characters in the entire history of film, meant to explicitly name and describe each individual LGBT character within each film -- but needless to say, that runs into the tens of thousands, making it a massive job that surpasses the ability and willingness of Wikipedians to actually stay on top of it, and results in a list that's already far, far too long to actually be useful even before you account for the fact that a lot of films with LGBTQ characters are still missing here. (And I do mean a lot a lot: for example, I spotchecked the last ten Teddy Award winners for Best Feature Film, and only two of those are listed here at all, and there are just 37 Canadian films listed here even though contains 320 films.) And since we already have a well-developed system of  broken out by individual year post-1960 or by decade pre-1960, it's not at all clear that trying to one-shot every individual queer character in the entire history of cinema into one single list is all that useful. If keeping active track of every individual queer character in the history of film is important to people, then that's better done by adding "queer characters" columns to the existing by-year lists instead of in one mass omnibus list going all the way back to the 1910s. Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Trying to maintain a list of every LGBT character in the history of film on a single page does not seem like a good idea. The fact that there are as many films on this page from 2021 as there are from the entire period from 1900 to 1964 also suggests that the list is likely to grow exponentially. As the nom says, the separate lists in would be a better place for this kind of information. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Split-off decades, but do not delete list.
 * Since the lists under Category:Lists of LGBT-related films are alleged to be "a well-developed system", for comparison I looked at List of LGBT-related films of 2021 and it does not provide the names of the L, G, B, or T characters in the films, and who plays which character in the films. It does not provide one, single description (i.e. notes) about the films either. I looked at one citation used 25 times in the list: "Les films du Festival de Cannes en lice pour la Queer Palm" – what you find in it does not verify the inclusion and identification of the LGBT characters that supposedly appear in all the films the source is used for (for example: TITANE, WOMEN DO CRY, BRUNO REIDAL -- just three of several films that do not include mention of who are the LGBT characters). It's apparent to me that the "reliable published sources" used in this list are of very limited value. The purpose of citing reliable sources is to confirm the information and claims made in an article (and "lists" are considered articles). List of LGBT-related films of 2021 does not provide the names of the LGBT characters in the films, nor anything about what appears onscreen that is considered lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.
 * Compared to List of feature films with LGBT characters, for example, List of LGBT-related films of 2021 is more a directory of film titles and not much else. What I've found through looking at several of the lists under the "Lists of LGBT-related films by year" umbrella is that the films listed are not providing any information about the LGBT characters that are supposedly included in the films, nor why they're considered "LGBT-related". Claiming that a film has an LGBT-theme, as List of LGBT-related films of 2021 does, is not enough encyclopedic information. What makes a film in this list an LGBT-related film?  Readers need to know what it is that has made the films in the "Lists" a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender related film.
 * One more example, take a look at Pandora's Box in List of LGBT-related films of the 1920s vs. List of feature films with LGBT characters. The former list says nothing about why the film is considered important in the history of LGBT-related cinema. The latter list, on the other hand, not only informs the reader of which character is LGBT, but also that it is "".
 * List of feature films with LGBT characters is a superior list in both explanation of LGBT content and the reliable sources used for the films. It's not a perfect list, but it's a better constructed list. Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 09:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't say character information was already present in the LGBT-related films by year lists — I said it could easily be added to the LGBT-related films by year lists if desired. And as for the notion that a list of nominees for an LGBTQ-specific film award somehow isn't adequate sourcing for listing the film in a list of LGBT films, I've responded to your subsequent reassertion of the same dubious claim below. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete... per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We don't simply need a laundry list of every single character that identifies as LGBT in every single film in existence. Category:Lists of LGBT-related films by year is more appropriate as it deals with film themes identifying as LGBT. Ajf773 (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because an editor claims a film has an LGBT theme does not make it true. It needs to be proven with sources that confirm the LGBT themes for each film listed. As I pointed out in my above comment, one source used 25 times in List of LGBT-related films of 2021 does not confirm the "LGBT theme" of all the films the citation is used for. Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 10:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Just because the list is long doesn't mean we could just delete it whenever we want. That's disturbance to freedom of information. You can separate the films by decade just as Pyxis Solitary suggested, you can even make new pages just like Category:Lists of LGBT-related television shows. But deletion of the entire page not only causes great disrespect to the editors, who try to share more knowledge to others, but also prevent others from knowing more about related stuffs. Wikipedia is a place where different people should be able to edit and learn. We should point out what the real problems of the page are, instead of erasing them by deletion. Runningman2027 . 10:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The source you're referring to is a list of the films that were selected as eligible for an LGBTQ-specific film award for which a film simply cannot be nominated at all if it isn't LGBTQ-themed, which makes it perfectly adequate sourcing for including the film in a list of LGBTQ-themed films. It can, of course, be replaced in each use with a source more specific to each individual film which goes into more detail about the LGBTQ content in the film, if and when somebody deigns to actually do so, but being listed as a nominee for either the Queer Palm or the Teddy Award is in and of itself sufficient sourcing to justify adding a film to the list in the first place, because the nomination for an LGBTQ-specific award inherently proves that the film has LGBTQ themes in it right on its face. If a film doesn't have LGBTQ themes in it, then the Teddy and Queer Palm juries simply won't nominate it for those awards, precisely because they're awards for LGBTQ films. Obviously it's better to replace it with more detailed sources when such become available, but that doesn't mean it's inadequate sourcing to start the list with in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. I have to fully agree with Pyxis Solitary here, as well as Runningman2027. Clearly, there are issues with the page, but deleting it is NOT the way to go about solving those problems, which can be talked about on the talk page of List of feature films with LGBT characters page. As such, I completely disagree with Ajf773, as this page does not include every single character in every single film, and Metropolitan90, in this regard, as well as the nom. I'm not sure why they didn't talk about this on the talk page rather than nominating it for deletion. It seems their concerns could be answered by having a discussion about this rather than going for the nuclear option and deciding to delete the page. It pains me to see people using the deletion process as a way to solve problems which could have been more easily addressed through a discussion on a talk page. This nomination is wrongheaded in more reasons than one. Additionally, the past consensus in 2011 at Articles for deletion/List of LGBT characters in film, radio, and TV fiction was to keep this page (albeit with a different name) and I stand in support of that consensus. The Nom seems to be making an argument in line with WP:RUBBISH and WP:IDONTKNOWIT. I would say this page deserves to be kept, additionally, per WP:GNG and the fact it has over 260 references, has potential for improvement, links to many pages, and is focused on a specific topic, in this case LGBTQ characters, at minimum. I also disagree with Bilorv who says this is "too large in scope for a list, and better served by a category (or hierarchy of categories), as is already done." The scope of this list is fine. Perhaps it could be further narrowed, but as it stands now, the scope of the list is not indiscriminate and its presence does not violate MOS:ACCESS.--Historyday01 (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You obviously know absolutely nothing about me or my edit history if you think this is a "rubbish" or "idon'tknowit" argument, because (a) I openly self-identify as gay on my own userpage, and (b) I was the creator of a significant proportion of the LGBT-related films by year lists. So I'd invite you to not try to read my mind, because you're clearly not psychic. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. I can't keep track of every single editor on here who works on LGBTQ content. This whole AfD seems wrongheaded and I stand by what I said in that regard. Not trying to read anyone's minds here. I am still confused as to why this wasn't discussed on the talk page of the List of feature films with LGBT characters rather than an AfD. If this discussion had been there instead of here, I would be less anxious about this whole discussion. I just don't understand why you thought an AfD was a "solution." It isn't. Discussion on a talk page should be the first step before deletion. You did not take that step, which I find very unfortunate, and I wish that you had, as I would be more receptive to your arguments if you had made that step.--Historyday01 (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep -- in line with Pyxis Solitary's rationale. Handling trivia might provide useful guidance on how to improve the list moving forward. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 14:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per policy and MOS:ACCESS.  SN54129  14:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: If being out of line with MOS:ACCESS was a good rationale for deletion, there would be a lot of otherwise completely okay articles that would need to be deleted. And I say that as someone who really cares about MOS:ACCESS specifically. - Purplewowies (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, and split apart list by decade. The nominator here has provided a rationale that can be addressed on the talkpage through cleanup. I want to remind others that consensus can change, and WP:WAX are factors here as bit of time has elapsed since the last provided examples. I am on the weak keep side here as the burden is on those who need to prove that x character is notable in y series for being LGBT. I can see something like: LGBT actors and actresses in feature films, but characters? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: too large in scope for a list, and better served by a category (or hierarchy of categories), as is already done. — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable list topic. The fact that it is messy does not mean it needs to be deleted, only cleaned up. The fact that it is long does not mean it needs to be deleted, only split into sub-articles of reasonable length, like we would do for films of specific years or nationalities or genres. I think what needs to be more clearly defined here is the scope of this list compared to a list of LGBT-related films. A film related to LGBT inevitably has LGBT characters, so it may be too much overlap to have a character-based list that includes everything from the film classification-based list. It may be worthwhile to have a list of films with LGBT characters that aren't LGBT-related films, and readers can be pointed to the list of LGBT-related films for that thematic focus. For example, I see The Fifth Element listed here with a secondary character being queer (Ruby Rhod), but I don't think the film itself would be considered LGBT-related. Where to draw the line, would warrant discussion. I can see the need for some criteria-applying or some splitting-off, but not for any wholesale article-deleting. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Per arguments above, but feel free to revisit in, what, a year?, if it is not improved. Ironically, I had been considering making a "List of actors in LGBT-themed films" list article, to help with the verifiability problems of some of those categories, which I doubt would fly if this is getting AfD'd. Kingsif (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I do think revisiting this in a year would be a good idea, . After all, keep votes (including my own) are being based on the belief the issues can be solved through splits and some clean-up, but that should only really hold if there are editors willing to go through with that (in my opinion). A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 17:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per other users. What even counts as having a LGBT character? Does it count if they character is unnamed? What if the character isn't being portrayed as LGBT in the film but is later retconned into being LGBT? JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 17:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel like those issues could be solved by following what the sources say, . I don't like how many characters here have cn tags, but I think that is best addressed through clean-up than deletion, and discussing what criteria is needed to call a character LGBT would be best served through talk page discussion rather than deletion in my opinion (the discussion would also impact List of LGBT films, for example). A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 18:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My first inclination would be to merge with the articles in Category:Lists of LGBT-related films, since there seems to be a duplication of scope here. Are there films with LGBT characters that wouldn't be classified as "LGBT-related films"? I agree that articles like List of LGBT-related films of 2014 should indicate for each entry in what way the film is "LGBT-related", and this will often involve describing its LGBT characters (though not necessarily enumerating all of them). My second choice would be to address the size issue by splitting the article, possibly by identity (we already have List of transgender characters in film), or year, or both. Colin M (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Are there films with LGBT characters that wouldn't be classified as "LGBT-related films"? - Yes! This has been debated before, but it seems pretty obvious; would you ask if there are films with black characters that aren't categorised as "black films"? No, because obviously there are. Themes and characters are not the same thing. The better question is the point of these LGBT character lists, but that is really a sourcing question, and if sources exist that find it important to document such lists, then we should improve the lists with those sources. Kingsif (talk) 07:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC) There are also LGBT-related films without main LGBT characters, like Burlesque, because of its themes and setting (and Cher, probably). Kingsif (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is also fairly reductive to assume/enforce that only LGBT-themed works will feature LGBT characters; 1. how many characters from not-LGBT-themed films would just be erased if the lists were merged. And hopefully, in future, there will be even more "not queer" media that just happen to have queer main characters - where would they go? and 2. what impression does it give to make no space on Wikipedia for LGBT representation in works that aren't super gay? But if going with the first suggestion, having the "LGBT-related" lists being the main, actually makes it more like Wikipedia impressing that inherently queer films are the only time queer characters exist (not even that queer characters only exist to tell queer stories, readers will have to be looking for the films/stories to find them). This might not mean much to you, but what happens when people catch wind that (in my slightly-hyperbolic but not inaccurate view) Wikipedia has decided to delete its lists of queer characters unless they are in queer films: world's biggest encyclopaedia now only reflects stereotypes, reversing efforts of expanding queer representation in mainstream media by actively deciding not to acknowledge it and refusing to share the knowledge. Kingsif (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fair. My initial impression was that the inclusion criteria for the "LGBT-related films" lists were quite loose (rather than just "super gay" films, as you call them), but on further investigation they do seem to be relatively narrow in their inclusion criteria, and I can see cases where a film character might have secondary sources discussing them in the context of LGBT representation, but without the movie they appear in being classifiable as "LGBT-related" (e.g. Damian in Mean Girls). That makes me more lukewarm on the idea of merging. I do worry that, as LGBT representation becomes increasingly common and unremarkable in mainstream media, this list veers toward WP:INDISCRIMINATE territory, and I wonder if setting a date cap might be appropriate. Colin M (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The by-year lists aren't restricted to "only" LGBT-themed films, while excluding films where LGBT content is more incidental. They're titled as LGBT-related, not LGBT-themed, and their inclusion criteria do not hinge on the subjective questions like how much LGBT content has to be present in the film. They're allowed to include any film that verifiably has LGBTQ content in it, regardless of whether the LGBTQ content is the "primary theme" or a more minor plot point, and if there are films missing from those lists (just as there are films missing from this one) then the solution is to add them. Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Has there been a discussion that established consensus for this? The boilerplate intro for the list articles says: It contains theatrically released films that deal with important gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender characters or issues and may have same-sex romance or relationships as a plot device. My reading of that would be that the presence of a minor LGBT character or plot point would not suffice. Colin M (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As I explained below: if a film has any LGBTQ content in it that's "important" enough that reliable sources can be found to address its LGBTQ content for the purposes of verifying its includability in a list of LGBTQ characters, then by definition that content is also "important" enough to merit inclusion in a list of LGBT-related films. It's not a question of "primary theme vs. secondary plot point": it's a question of "do reliable sources actually discuss the film's LGBTQ content as an aspect of the film". If you can reliably source that a film has an LGBTQ character in it, because reliable sources have discussed the LGBTQness of the character, then that test has automatically been passed — and if you can't find a source that passes that test, then you haven't reliably sourced the inclusion of any of its characters in a list of LGBTQ characters either. The by-year lists are not, and never have been, deemed to require that the LGBTQ content has to be foregrounded as the film's principal storyline — they merely require that LGBTQ content is reliably sourceable as being present in the film. If there are films missing from those lists (just as there are many films missing from this one), it's not because the lists have restrictive inclusion criteria that kick some films out on a "is there enough LGBTQ content" test — it's solely because people haven't added them yet, just as not every film with LGBTQ characters in it has been added here yet either. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Colin M, it looks like I'm having a similar discussion with Bearcat below. My reading matches yours. Firefangledfeathers 23:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am amenable to your idea of splitting the article by identities. Four separate lists can evolve from List of feature films with LGBT characters as follows:
 * List of feature films with lesbian characters
 * List of feature films with gay characters
 * List of feature films with bisexual characters
 * And the title of the already-existing List of transgender characters in film can be changed to
 * List of feature films with transgender characters.
 * The "Film franchises" section can be made into a stand-alone list titled
 * List of feature film franchises with LGBT characters.
 * A list of films with LGBT characters serves a different purpose than a list of films with LGBT themes/association. From a reader's perspective, I am more interested in who the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender characters in a film are. And as an editor who has been editing film related articles for several years, I have found that many articles about films that have LGBT characters in them don't bother to say so — it's as if some editors choke when it comes to stating the words "lesbian", "gay", "bisexual", or  "transgender". (A few weeks ago I discovered that an editor was mass-deleting LGBT categories from film and TV articles because of a lack of upfront material to support the categories. One film was The Prom, which is about a lesbian teenager who wants to take her girlfriend to the high school prom; and I edited the article to highlight the lesbian and gay about the film.)  Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 12:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The tendency of some editors to throw the baby out with the bathwater is the Achilles' heel of Wikipedia. Pyxis Solitary  (yak). L not Q. 11:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge it into pre-existing articles, and then delete/redirect. Per Colin M and per nom. This massive catch-all list would be impossible to maintain properly and is redundant in scope with other articles. It's been noted that some of those articles have flaws, but so does this one, with many unsourced entries. The less redundancy we have in article scope, the higher the average quality can be. Crossroads -talk- 01:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose I can agree, but I also think it should be kept in its current form until sources can be added, like I recently did for a few films, for those films that need it, then it can be split off into specific pages as needed, with people each taking specific years to add citations to. So I suppose I can support what you are saying, but I think its too early to do that. The unsourced entries need to be improved with citations before it can be split off as you suggest.Historyday01 (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not redundant, per my comments above. They're not the cleanest of articles, but I also know that there are many, many, messy list articles that nobody even thinks about AfD'ing because they understand the subject and its scope and so its encyclopaedic value to exist, even in messy form; there may be some subconscious homophobia - from an ignorant, not malicious, side - in simply bringing this here. We have lists of LGBT people, what is so different with the lists of LGBT characters, besides it feels less shitty to argue it isn't important when they're not real. Kingsif (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "It's been noted that some of those articles have flaws, but so does this one, with many unsourced entries." – Have you seen the overwhelming lack of sources for many of the films listed in the Lists of LGBT-related films by year? Take a look at "List of LGBT-related films of 1969", "List of LGBT-related films of 1979", "List of LGBT-related films of 1989", and "List of LGBT-related films of 1999" for starters.  The List of feature films with LGBT characters is tiny in contrast with the whole of "Lists of LGBT-related films by year" — yet this single list has comparatively more sources (286 as of this writing).


 * as this meets WP:NLIST. I am not experience in list deletion discussions, but I would be surprised to learn that "hard to maintain" or "too long" are valid deletion criteria, as both are fixable problems. I disagree with the Delete !votes that cite redundancy, as there's a difference between an LGBT-related film and one that has an LGBT character. If I were wrong about that, I'd fall back on Pyxis Solitary's excellent points about the quality of the lists. I can't see this list as INDISCRIMINATE, as the data is "placed in tables to enhance readability" and largely "put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources".I'm including a short, collapsed list below of sources that support this list meeting NLIST's criterion, "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Anyone should feel free to add to the list. Firefangledfeathers 16:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) Reuters 2018
 * 2) Variety 2021
 * 3) BBC 2020
 * 4) Washington Post 2020
 * 5) IndieWire 2020
 * 6) NPR 2021
 * 7) Washington Blade 2022
 * 8) GLAAD Media Institute
 * 9) CineQueer, GLAAD's guide to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender images in film
 * 10) The 28 Best Gay Movies for Rainy Days
 * 11) LGBT representation at record high on streaming services, but some nations still need sex education, MSN, 2022
 * 12) How The Representation Of The Queer Community Changed In The Last Couple Of Years, Outlook India, 2022
 * 13) The long, potted history of LGBT+ Hollywood – from queer silent film to the problematic present, Pink News, 2022
 * 1) CineQueer, GLAAD's guide to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender images in film
 * 2) The 28 Best Gay Movies for Rainy Days
 * 3) LGBT representation at record high on streaming services, but some nations still need sex education, MSN, 2022
 * 4) How The Representation Of The Queer Community Changed In The Last Couple Of Years, Outlook India, 2022
 * 5) The long, potted history of LGBT+ Hollywood – from queer silent film to the problematic present, Pink News, 2022
 * 1) How The Representation Of The Queer Community Changed In The Last Couple Of Years, Outlook India, 2022
 * 2) The long, potted history of LGBT+ Hollywood – from queer silent film to the problematic present, Pink News, 2022


 * Those sources support the fact that LGBTQ characters in film are a subject of analysis, yes. They do not constitute evidence that Wikipedia's information about the topic has to be organized in this particular form, when we already have other articles where we can do the same thing in a more manageable and user-friendly way. The problem here isn't that the information is fundamentally illegitimate in principle — it's a question of what's the best way for us to organize it, and one mass omnibus list that would run into the tens (maybe even hundreds) of thousands of entries if it were properly populated isn't the best way to do that. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm curious. What is "user-friendly" about an enumeration of "LGBT-related" films which give titles, directors, countries, genres, and cast — many of whom do not play LGBT roles in the films (see the example of Pandora's Box highlighted in my first comment, where you'll find that the actress that plays the lesbian character, which is a significant character, isn't included in the film cast at List of LGBT-related films of the 1920s) — and a notes area that says nothing about what makes the films LGBT-related? I can imagine that these lists may be viewed as a directory of film titles by film students.  But what the lists in Lists of LGBT-related films say to the general reader is: "Here are films that are supposed to be LGBT related. Don't ask us why."  Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 08:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I've specifically included sources that are collectively discussing LGBTQ characters in film that are not LGBTQ-related or are discussing the film industry as a whole. Most of the specific films mentioned would not fit into the existing lists. Firefangledfeathers 18:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not true at all. The existing by-year lists are titled as LGBT-related, not as LGBT-themed, and they have never, ever had any sort of "only films that are primarily LGBTQ-themed, and not films where LGBTQ content is present but more incidental" rule applied to them whatsoever — they're allowed to include any film that verifiably has any LGBTQ content in it at all, regardless of whether it's as a primary theme or a more minor plot point, and always have been. And meanwhile, this list is not a "list of LGBTQ characters in non-LGBTQ films" either, but is a list of "LGBTQ characters in any film the maintainers of the list have heard of". So the distinction you're trying to draw doesn't actually constitute a difference between this and the films-by-year lists, because this list doesn't exclude "principally LGBTQ" films and those lists don't exclude "only secondarily LGBTQ" films. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I did say LGBT-related and did not intend LGBT-themed. The year lists say "contains theatrically released films that deal with important gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender characters or issues and may have same-sex romance or relationships as a plot device." Is that not an accurate description of their inclusion criteria? Either way, I still support keeping the list under discussion, but for different reasons depending on your answer. Firefangledfeathers 21:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Important", in that context = any character whose queerness is verifiable in reliable source coverage about the film. It's not a "protagonist vs. minor supporting character" distinction, it's a "sourceable vs. unsourceable" distinction (which, at least in theory, is the same distinction that this list is supposed to be following too) — if it's significant enough that journalists or film critics actually addressed the queer content in their coverage about the film, then it's automatically "important" enough to put the film in the by-year lists, precisely because the fact that it's sourceable as having been important enough to be addressed by reliable sources makes it important enough to be included in the lists. "May have" = "possible, but not mandatory", and thus the lack of an explicit same-sex romance doesn't preclude inclusion in the list at all. And I didn't say you used the word "themed", but you did apply the definition of "themed" in lieu of the actual definition of "related". Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying, though I disagree that I applied the definition of themed, and have no idea how you could have gotten that from my comment. I continue to support keeping this list. If consensus develops at the year lists to drop the word 'important' and to clarify that the lists include films that are not LGBT-related, I'd support merging the lists. The year lists would also need to note whether a film is present because it is LGBT-related or because it includes a verifiably LGBT character. I know from skimming through the year lists that you are a major contributor (thanks!), and I am not a contributor at all, so I believe 100% your read on the consensus of editors. As a reader, I would be baffled to learn, after reading the lists titles and inclusion criteria, that a film with a minor queer character were included. As an editor, 'important' can be dropped if all it means is 'verifiable', as the descriptor applies to all valid Wikipedia content. Firefangledfeathers 21:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And there you go again: there is no such thing as a film that is verifiable in reliable sources as having a queer character in it, yet is somehow not LGBTQ-related. It's true that not every film with one or more LGBTQ characters in it is necessarily LGBTQ-themed, because they might be minor supporting characters rather than the protagonists of the main story, but every film with any LGBTQ content in it at all is, by definition, LGBTQ-related, and the by-year lists cut on relatedness, not themedness. It's simply a question of whether we can find reliable sources that address the inclusion of queer content in the film: if a film is sourceable enough to be included here, then it's automatically related enough to be included in the by-year lists too, and if a film isn't sourceably LGBT-related for the purposes of being included there, then it isn't sourceably LGBT-inclusive for the purposes of being included here either. There can be a distinction between "has an LGBTQ character in it" and "LGBTQ-themed" — but there isn't a distinction between "has an LGBTQ character in it" and "LGBTQ-related", because the inclusion of an LGBTQ character in the film makes it related literally by definition. Bearcat (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand your position and disagree. There's a difference between LGBT-related and "has an LGBT character". You mention "by definition", though I know of none, so if you have access to a formal definition of the term, let me know. By way of analogy, I wouldn't describe The Princess Diaries as an Asian-related film because of Sandra Oh's character, and Zendaya's presence in Dune doesn't make it reasonably a Black-related film. I see that others above are wrestling with this distinction, and I think it's likely that readers will experience confusion when reviewing our year lists. There's some built-in flexibility between a list's title and it's content per WP:LISTNAME, but the guidance is then that "the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead". Here my reading of the criteria confirms my reading of the list's title, and both suggest that many films should be excluded from those lists that should be included in this one. I am unlikely to respond to you again, Bearcat, as it's frustrating to see you so persistently conjure up strawmen. I hope the closer will understand that my lack of a response does not indicate concession to your argument. Firefangledfeathers 23:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not conjuring up any strawmen whatsoever. The inclusion criterion for this list is (or is at least supposed to be) that reliable sources can be found to properly verify the LGBTQ sexuality of one or more characters, which means that a film is fair game for inclusion if media coverage can be found to discuss the character's sexuality and not if it cannot — and the inclusion criterion for the by-year list is that reliable sources can be found to properly verify that the film has LGBTQ content in it. So any source that's actually adequate to fulfill criterion #1, by definition, also fulfills criterion #2 at the same time. That's not a strawman, it's just a simple fact. Bearcat (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Replying, as is only fair, because I should have been more clear about "strawmen". I was referring to your repeated insistence that my argument has anything to do with theme. I would love for your to consider how strange it is for me to have never mentioned theme, repeatedly declared that my points have nothing to do with theme, and to nonetheless be repeatedly mischaracterized. I don't think your points on the inclusion criteria are strawmen; I think they're reasonable and good points, but ones that I disagree with. Firefangledfeathers 23:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, exactly what other word would you suggest I use, then? "Related" doesn't work, because "related" merely requires reliable sources to discuss a film's LGBTQ-related content, such that any source that discusses a film character's sexuality in enough depth to support their inclusion in a list of LGBTQ characters inherently makes the film LGBTQ-related enough to also belong in a list of LGBTQ-related films, because the only thing those lists require is that reliable sources actually discuss the film's LGBTQ content — so if "related" doesn't work under my definition and "themed" doesn't work under yours, then what other word would you suggest I use to convey the difference between our respective positions?
 * And as for "I wouldn't describe The Princess Diaries as an Asian-related film because of Sandra Oh's character, and Zendaya's presence in Dune doesn't make it reasonably a Black-related film", that's not actually an analogue to what's at issue here. Those obviously aren't Asian-related or Black-related films just because they have Asian or Black actors in them — but they would be Asian-related or Black-related films if you could find reliable sources that discussed and analyzed the racial backgrounds of their characters in terms of narrative relevance within the story itself, exactly as the LGBT lists also require. Bearcat (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I second Firefangledfeathers on this. The English language phrase "LGBT-related" does not have a single, unambiguous definition. Bearcat has come up with one definition, which is not an unreasonable one, but contrary to what they say, it is far from the only one possible. For example, it's entirely plausible that someone might describe a film as LGBT-related because it features one or more LGBT cast members or creative staff. It's also very plausible that a film might have a verifiably LGBT character but not be considered "LGBT-related" by some people. For example, read the entry for "Gobber the Belch" at List of fictional gay characters and tell me whether that establishes How to Train Your Dragon 2 as an "LGBT-related film". Also, Bearcat asserts that the inclusion criteria for these list articles follows their definition, but it doesn't seem there was any discussion establishing consensus for this. Colin M (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There hasn't been any discussion to establish a consensus for any inclusion criteria more restrictive than what I said either — so until there is a discussion that establishes a more restrictive inclusion criterion than that, established practice counts as a demonstration of consensus in and of itself, and I'm correct about what established practice has been. Consensus obviously requires discussion to hash out if and when there's some disagreement about it, but until such a disagreement arises simply observing established practice is sufficient evidence of consensus. Bearcat (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The one thing that puzzles me about whole discussion is why wasn't it held on the talk page of List of feature films with LGBT characters rather than in a AfD? My understanding is that issues with articles should be discussed on a talk page BEFORE an AfD. That was not done in this case and I find that very unfortunate. I will say that I have to agree with the arguments of Colin M and Firefangledfeathers when it comes to LGBTQ content, as a person who has often edited pages about LGBTQ topics for a while now. Historyday01 (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think it's inappropriate to try to hash out inclusion criteria while this list is on the chopping block. I would suggest editors supporting deletion to instead support conditionally keeping the article if inclusion criteria can be determined and applied, and to re-nominate if that fails. This list is not outright detrimental to Wikipedia -- it's just messy, long, and potentially redundant. I think it's possible to reevaluate the scope of this list and the list of LGBT-related films in a proper discussion. The challenge is that we are limited with language in drawing distinctions, but that happens with all kinds of classifications! Is a film really French if some filming took place in France? Is a film really a science fiction film if it has fantasy elements? Et cetera. I get that LGBT characters could immediately make for an "LGBT-related film" in the most technical sense. But I think there can be a difference between LGBT films (meaning that is the primary plot or theme) and films that have LGBT characters in supporting roles (the latter most likely to have appeared historically). There won't be a perfect separation, but I think inclusion criteria should be possible for most films and their characters. Please ping me for that discussion if it happens. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been saying the same exact thing too. I don't know why people think this list is somehow detrimental to Wikipedia. I'm even willing to say the scope of the list and the list of LGBT-related films should happen, but it should be done after the AfD has ended. I tend to support the page more strongly, however, as a big contributor to it, and would like discussion to continue, although none of those supporting deletion have committed themselves to any further discussion at this point. Historyday01 (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per Pyxis Solitary, Firefangledfeathers, and Historyday01. I think Pyxis' analysis and suggestions are particularly strong, and help differentiate this list from others. I very much like the idea of splitting the content by decades and applaud the work that has been done on this already. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A question for the folks who vote delete per the list being unmaintainable. There are editors who have contributed to this discussion, like whom not only have been maintaining this article up to now, are also apparently willing to continue maintaining it for the forseable future. If there are editors present who believe they can maintain it, does that not counter the arguments that this list is unmaintainable? Understandably it would be a different situation if this list had been abandoned for some time, however that is not the case here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * KeepA useful list for people wanting to read about LGBT representation in feature films.(Rillington (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC))
 * Keep and perhaps trim down to those characters with main roles. One way to know would be if the actors have a Wiki page and the movies for sure should have a Wiki page. Zeddedm (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Zeddedm, I can agree with that. Perhaps the list could be limited to "LGBT characters in a leading or supporting role" as they are in the Film franchises section. That can be discussed more when this discussion comes to an end. I am a bit wary of limiting it down to just characters with main roles, as I think there are some important films which have supporting LGBTQ characters.Historyday01 (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "One way to know would be if the actors have a Wiki page and the movies for sure should have a Wiki page." – Reality is not as easy as your suggestion. Wikipedia is a user-generated project and if editors don't include information in an article, it does not exist in Wikipedia. Take Barbara Stanwyck's filmography: it doesn't say that she's a lead in Walk on the Wild Side, nor does the film article mention the importance about her participation in the cast. But take a look at what List of feature films with LGBT characters states about the film, character, and actor — and then look at what List of LGBT-related films of 1962 informs the reader about its relation with LGBT (I'll spare you the finger walk: zilch). Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 17:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete, or partially merge/redirect to appropriate articles. I agree that the list is overinclusive to the degree of being indiscriminate. This means that it will necessarily alway be very incomplete and often of low quality, which does not serve our readers. In particular, with increasing LGBT inclusivity in Western media, it is likely that many or most new films will include LGBT characters to some degree, making the list even more difficult to maintain.  Sandstein   07:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be broken apart into other articles, BUT that should only happen after the AfD has concluded.--Historyday01 (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Bearcat found places that cover this. If there is no reliable source that mentions the character was LGBT, then remove it from the list.  If they were important enough to mention that fact about them, then they should be on the list.   D r e a m Focus  17:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't agree more. As one example, I started looking through it, but I stumbled upon one article in Transgender Tapestry just about trans characters in film and its a couple pages long and it lists all sorts of characters! My guess is that there is a plethora of articles in that publication, which is not only easily accessible but is by the International Foundation for Gender Education, a trans non-profit. That is only one of the many articles out there, while GLAAD covers this over and over again (its basically their mission to promote more representation), whether in their blog posts, Twitter posts, and yearly reports, although they mainly focus on television series. Historyday01 (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete As going against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Being about LGBT issues and simply having characters who happen to be LGBT in them are two very different things. The sheer size of the article shows how overly difficult it would be to maintain, as well as requiring vast amounts of ongoing effort to catalog LGBT characters from current and future films. Eventually, perhaps even now, it would need to be split into articles for every letter of the alphabet or even moreso - Category:Fictional LGBT characters in film was literally made for this purpose. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I somewhat agree, ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, in that it is hard to maintain, but the deletion of this content would be a net negative. Wouldn't it be better to add citations to all the entries which need citations, THEN split it off? It just seems that wanting to delete it is jumping the gun. The loss of all these entries and all the hard work by those who have edited the page would be erased. It could even cause certain editors to be dispirited and not want to add LGBTQ content in the future. They might think that if this page is deleted, then what LGBTQ page is next on the chopping block? It would send the message that Wikipedia doesn't really care about LGBTQ topics at a time that Wikipedia already struggles with bias in its editors, content, and so on. We should be including content, in the right way, rather than deleting it. Historyday01 (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say that a great many deleted lists over the years have involved some degree of "hard work", but their creators were unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and unfortunately that work was usually wasted. However, simply because someone worked hard on something does not mean it is encyclopedic.
 * As for whether editors would be deterred from adding to similar articles, that could frankly apply to almost any article that is deleted on Wikipedia. Maybe someone would see their favorite extremely minor comic book hero get removed and lose interest in adding to those articles. The fact is that if someone is unsure of whether to devote massive amounts of time to an article there's always asking others for their opinion on whether it's truly notable or not. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to make the point is that it would be a loss for Wikipedia to delete the list. I'm not, at this point, willing to say how the list should be shortened or revised until AFTER it is on the chopping block. I fully support a continued discussion about the list, but only after the AfD has ended. LGBTQ pages are an important part of ensuring Wikipedia accurately reflects the world, especially when it comes to popular culture. The article was perfectly fine until the OP decided to nominate it for deletion rather than beginning with a discussion on the talk page of the page in question. Why the OP did not do that, I do not know, but I would be much more receptive to their arguments if the page wasn't on the chopping block. Your dismissive tone, from what I can gather, on this subject, is worrying. Historyday01 (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Just because other sites have produced indiscriminate lists does not suddenly make the topic fit for an encyclopaedia.  LGBT in cinema is an encyclopaedic topic if covered in a scholarly fashion rather than a raw list of films. List of feature films with LGBT characters is about as indiscriminate as List of feature films with horses. SpinningSpark 13:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A strange comment because LGBT in cinema isn't even a page. Wouldn't it be better to preserve the page for now, add the necessary sources, then split it off as needed? Historyday01 (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it wouldn't be better – that was my whole point. Such an article would start with sources discussing LGBT in cinema and write an article from there.  Films mentioned in the article would be those films that those sources thought were significant to the subject, not an indiscriminate list of all films containing an horse LGBT character. SpinningSpark 18:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We will have to agree to disagree on your point. Even so, I am not opposed to having an article about LGBT in cinema and it would be a good addition to Wikipedia. If you wish to create such a page, feel free to do so. I can't because I'm too swamped with other things going on, but I support your proposal for that page. At the same time, I support preserving the page in contention until all reliable sources have been added, then it should be split off into specific pages, as others have proposed. Historyday01 (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete Due to per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you actually have an argument beyond that? Because that seems like a bit of a copycat from what other people have said.Historyday01 (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * keep I'd rather we have "leading characters" or some such because this is pretty much every movie now. But sure, there are sources and I don't see it as indiscriminate per se, it's an important issue. Hobit (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per Sandstein. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete The cleanup problems here I think are kind of irrelevant, in that there's no way for this article to cover its topic adequately under a best-case scenario given the scope is so wide to fall afoul of WP:NOTCATALOG. There are much better ways to categorize every article that could be covered (like a category!) or present the important examples (like an article about the history of LGBT representation in film/media!) I'm not really sure it meets WP:NLIST, especially in regards to useful list navigation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think those cleanup problems could be solved if the page was kept, then split off not long afterward. Historyday01 (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete as an excessively indiscriminate list. This list, if complete, would be absolutely enormous and wouldn't provide much in the way of encyclopedic value. In the present day it isn't considered remarkable or groundbreaking to include an LGBT character in a film, and we don't compile lists of fictional characters by incidental personal characteristics. In the vast majority of cases (at least for the films I've seen) the character's sexuality is not relevant to the wider themes of the film. A list of films about LGBT issues is very different and much more encyclopedic. This applies even if there are sources about LGBT characters in film. It would be fine if someone wanted to write an article about LGBT characters in film, but to be encyclopedic it would have to be an article with prose rather than a big list. Also no objection if someone wants to very selectively merge it somewhere else.  Hut 8.5  10:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I still believe it would be better to save the list first, then split it off into specific pages after the AfD has ended. Historyday01 (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If List of feature films with LGBT characters is an "excessively indiscriminate list" ... then by that logic so is the collection of films in Lists of LGBT-related films. The latter is allowed to exist without: (1) describing why the films are considered to be LGBT-related, and (2) reliable sources for all the films in each list. Such a status of omission may be ignored by many editors here, but those who want to eliminate List of feature films with LGBT characters should also be prepared to apply the knife to the Lists of LGBT-related films. Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 15:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, I have to completely agree. I fear that if this page is deleted, then those who support this deletion will definitely try to apply to the knife to the Lists of LGBT-related films category and any other LGBTQ pages out there that they deem "excessively indiscriminate." After all, just look at the pages within List of LGBT-related films of the 1960s. NONE of those sub-pages cite ANY sources to support their claims that the films are LGBT-related. The same can be said for the subpages of List of LGBT-related films of the 1970s, List of LGBT-related films of the 1980s, List of LGBT-related films of the 1990s, and List of LGBT-related films of the 2000s which have few or no sources on each page. The subpages of List of LGBT-related films of the 2010s are the only ones which are appropriately sourced. However, if they were nominated for deletion, I would still support their inclusion. And what to do you know but the person who nominated the list of feature films with LGBT characters for deletion also nominated the List of LGBT-related films in 2019, but was unsuccessful, with general agreement favoring "keep" at the time. Why am I not surprised. Historyday01 (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think those lists are a sensible comparison. If a film is actually about LGBT issues then that's one of the most important properties of the film, and categorising films by what they're about is not indiscriminate. But merely having at least one character who happens to be LGBT is not a significant property at all. To use a different analogy, we can have List of black films of the 2010s because Black film is a recognised category. But nobody would ever try to write a list of films which have at least one black character, and if they did it wouldn't be encyclopedic. The state of the sourcing in an article isn't in itself a valid reason to delete it. (If no sources are available for that content then it's rather different.) I'm sure this can be moved to draft space or wherever if someone wants to merge it.  Hut 8.5  17:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "But merely having at least one character who happens to be LGBT is not a significant property at all." Well now, you've just shown that you are unfamiliar with the films in Lists of LGBT-related films. Since very few of the films I've seen in the lists include a mention of the L or G or B or T in them, there's no way to know which of the films has just "one character" vs. several. You're shooting darts at a target while standing in a dark room. Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 18:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding to what Pyxis is saying, I think it is a worthy comparison because Bearcat, who proposed this AfD, nominated List of LGBT-related films for deletion back in 2019 arguing that it had "outlived its usefulness and been supplanted by other, more specific lists, for a subject that has become far too large to be maintainable in this one-stop format anymore," which seemed like he was making the argument it was indiscriminate, similar to his argument in the nom that this list has "significant maintainability problems, effectively duplicative of other content," again implying it is indiscriminate. Additionally, in past comments in this AfD discussion he has defended the inadequate sourcing on those pages, saying, in part, "Obviously it's better to replace it with more detailed sources when such become available, but that doesn't mean it's inadequate sourcing to start the list with in the first place", among other arguments. So, I think the comparison makes sense in this case. And it seems weird that those pages which stem from the List of LGBT-related films, which have few sources, generally, as I noted in another comment in this discussion, are allowed to stay while this page, which is much better sourced, is challenged and nominated for deletion. So, comparing it to the list in question makes perfect sense.Historyday01 (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * None of this is even vaguely relevant. All I said is that a list of films with LGBT themes is, in principle, an encyclopedic topic. Whether List of LGBT-related films is well sourced or well written has nothing to do with this. Articles here are deleted because they have fundamental problems which can't be fixed through editing, if something can be fixed through editing (such as adding more sources), then that's not a reason for deletion. See WP:NEXIST and WP:ATD. The idea that these pages are comparable because Bearcat has nominated them both for deletion is ridiculous. Bearcat has nominated thousands of pages for deletion, they aren't all comparable. What Bearcat has said or hasn't said on other topics is also not relevant here, and I don't know where you got the idea that I agree with everything Bearcat has written.  Hut 8.5  20:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would have to disagree there. It boggles my mind that you say that "articles here are deleted because they have fundamental problems which can't be fixed through editing" and add that "if something can be fixed through editing (such as adding more sources), then that's not a reason for deletion." That is unboubtedly the case here and editing could easily address the arguments of those who favor deletion of this page. 71.179.1.78 (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The argument for deletion is with the scope and nature of the list. That's not something which can be addressed through editing - any list with the same scope would have the same problem.  Hut 8.5  08:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, it can be addressed through editing. Not sure how you don't realize that. 71.179.1.78 (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, how do you propose we address the issues with the scope of the list through editing? If your suggestion amounts to writing a different list with a different scope then that's not editing.  Hut 8.5  17:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Pages are fluid and changing. Anything can be fixed and changed with editing, which involves moving content from one page to another, if need be. 71.179.1.78 (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Anything can be fixed and changed with editing - er, no. If a topic is unsuitable for Wikipedia then any page on that topic will be unsuitable. And given what the deletion policy says, this position would make it impossible to delete any page, ever.  Hut 8.5  17:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me clarify. I'm trying to say that editing is the first resort to fix a problem, followed by discussion. Deleting a page should be a last resort option, especially for a topic such as this one. I am not opposed to deleting pages, but this page in question should not be deleted. Unsure why Bearcat did not follow WP:BEFORE, especially this part: If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag...this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it. Why did Bearcat not follow that? The fact Bearcat did not follow existing Wikipedia rules undermines the whole AfD and makes it a complete farce. 71.179.1.78 (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Given the high level of ongoing discussion, relisting this to make sure all interested parties have an opportunity to express their opinions. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep but change the scope or cut it up somehow. This one caught my attention, and I found myself discussing it with some non-Wikipedians after seeing the discussion. So, this is obviously a notable topic. There's no shortage of sources which treat them as a group. The objection seems to be WP:NOT on the basis of there being so many titles to include. Can you imagine talking to someone of the Stonewall era and saying "you know, in the future, the world's largest encyclopedia will have a list of films with LGBT characters, and by then it will be so common for there to be LGBT characters that some people will think the list is too big to maintain?" What do you do with a noteworthy topic that, due to changes in society, stops being all that noteworthy? Like, even 20 years ago, it was still meaningful to see LGBT characters in fiction. And for a lot of people it still is (especially, I dare say, people in the many countries where it's still not safe for them). There are countless books, articles, etc. which talk about the incredible importance of being able to see someone like yourself reflected in the media, and the struggle for that representation. What we have in this list is a timeline of that representation. It's great that it's overflowing. The challenge is what to do with it. We absolutely shouldn't just delete. Perhaps we can find a cutoff date in some RS, using a category for everything after that date. Or divide it by country (though that doesn't really help for the US list). This is not unfixable. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh I totally agree. I'm willing to admit that the scope should be changed, but the solution is NOT to delete the page. Pyxis has already shown interest in splitting it into sexual orientations/identities on Talk:List of feature films with LGBT characters, but that should only be done once the AfD has ended. I find this whole AfD tiresome and the arguments of those in favor of deletion as tired out arguments which are also trotted out, often against LGBTQ pages, like List of LGBT characters in video games, List of African American LGBT, List of LGBT characters in modern written fiction, List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 2020s, LGBT themes in horror fiction, Queer coding, List of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender-related films, List of media portrayals of bisexuality, and List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2010s,to name a few. Some the same people who supported deletion of the last page I mentioned have chimed in on this deletion, curious enough. Historyday01 (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Why? Its not like the discussion is going to somehow improve because it is relisted. A weird decision. Historyday01 (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Note to closer: and  appear to have been canvassed here by  here and here. valereee (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, that doesn't matter. I would have participated anyway. It doesn't somehow invalidate my comments, or those of Pyxis or Runningman2027, as all three of us are some of the biggest contributors to the article in question, so it only makes sense that we contributed. Also, two comments on two user pages does not count as canvassing. Historyday01 (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Historyday01, it actually can invalidate your comments. Closers are free to discount comments by someone who is canvassed to a discussion. It's one of the reasons it's a bad idea.
 * Accusing me of posting this as "trying to stir the pot" is a personal attack. Please strike that. valereee (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have removed that comment, but I still feel it is improper to point this out as it is trying to invalidate one of the biggest contributors to the page and it seems wrong to me. Historyday01 (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * FFR, it's best to strike (surround with text you're striking, which draws a line through it, rather than remove, as it's considered less confusing to other editors, but no worries, I'm not a stickler for that when I'm the one being referred to. valereee (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * the top contributors to this article by text are Pyxis Solitary, Gary1227, Historyday01, and Runningman2027. As per WP:APPNOTE, it's appropriate to notify major contributors. I don't know why Gary1227 wasn't among them -- perhaps because he's pretty inexperienced -- but as the notification text itself looks pretty benign, this looks to be a non-issue. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Canvassing people who are likely to be on the same side of a discussion as you are is never a good idea. If, as HD01 says, they would have ended up here anyway (and I have no reason not to believe that), then canvassing is unnecessary. And it never looks good. valereee (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to agree 100% with Rhododendrites. I think its a non-issue and I'm not sure why you are bringing it up. If you want to talk about the page in question, feel free, but you seem to pushing this discussion in a certain direction and I find it weird. Stop with this misdirection. Please focus on the topic at hand: the proposed deletion of the List of feature films with LGBT characters page. That would be deeply appreciated, as this discussion is definitely an important one. Historyday01 (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Historyday01, what weird direction do you think I'm pushing the discussion in? I haven't even given an opinion on what I think should be the result here. Not sure I have an opinion, even. valereee (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but it seems weird you are bringing this up when it would make more sense to discuss the issue at hand, the AfD. Why weigh in on discussion if you don't even "have an opinion" on the topic? That doesn't make a lick of sense. Historyday01 (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Notifying top contributors is not against canvassing rules. It's explicitly mentioned at APPNOTE. Yes, obviously top contributors are more likely to support retaining the article they've worked on. If you think that notification should not be executed by another of the top contributors, I'd urge you to propose that change to make it clear. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea. I wouldn't have felt like it needed to be pointed out if Bearcat had done those notifications. Or if Pyxis Solitary had pinged them from this discussion with an explanation "Pinging top contributors." valereee (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see a big difference between leaving them a neutral message and pinging them here. If the messages had been a "zomg plz save this" then that would be a problem, but either way the point is notification. I don't really have a strong opinion on the form/location for that notification -- I just wouldn't support a rule disallowing notification of top contributors. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging them here is easily visible to all concerned.
 * Agree that there should be no rule against allowing notification of top contributors. The basic problem is when, like here, all top contributors clearly believe the list should be a keep. Sorry, I should take this somewhere else. valereee (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:CANVASS > Appropriate notification > ". For those who want to see exactly what I posted on the talk pages of editors Historyday01 and Runningman2027, here it is:
 * "If you haven't seen the edit:
 * 'This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
 * Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's deletion discussion page.'"
 * Pyxis Solitary  (yak) . L not Q. 19:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete we have categories for things like this, and examples have been given above in this AfD. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 19:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a valid reason to delete. WP:NOTDUP says, "...arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Pyxissolitary. The "delete" arguments don't make much sense to me in a WP:NOTPAPER encyclopedia.  Too much information? If that's the case, maybe figure out some sort of split. The goal is to give fullest possible coverage,  and categories, while useful as navigation aids, aren't great for coverage.  The keep arguments are better where building the world's largest encyclopedia is concerned. Now, as to maintenance, it has already been said that curation  should occur through coverage in reliable sources. The goal should not be total inclusion. Wikipedia is not a random collection of knowledge. (I came here 'cause I saw the ANI thread.)  -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 20:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete It seems to be have an arbitary title and seems to be an indiscriminate list of information that has little historical or encyclopeadic value. Why create such a list. Is there is a complementary list for folk who exhibit other types of sexual orientation, no, so why explicity this type of article. Is it some kind of puff piece. The argument i've seen in the Afd about not being paper encyclopedia, means automatic delete, because there is no single cogent argument to keep it. There is not a redirect that I can see either. It is no backed academic or scholarly sources, so what is the reason. Changed to strong delete.    scope_creep Talk  13:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So nevermind all the sources about this subject, about representation of LGBT people in film... it's just some "arbitrary" topic. It's so preposterous that it merits the rare strong delete. complementary list for folk who exhibit other types of sexual orientation - Is it that you're looking for a Q or a + at the end of the title, or are you talking about a list of straight and/or cisgender characters in film? NOTPAPER is usually a weak argument, yes, and when people use it it's typically because there's not otherwise a good reason to keep. I'm with you there. But there are an awful lot of arguments presented on this page, and you've only addressed the weakest one. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 13:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * – "Is there is a complementary list for folk who exhibit other types of sexual orientation": This "don't ask, don't tell" type of culture argument is very familiar to many of us who leapt off the hetero tree.
 * – "no backed academic or scholarly sources": Where in WP:RS and WP:PSTS does it say that the only acceptable sources that can be used in an article are "academic or scholarly"? If any merit were to be given to this rationale, then Lists of LGBT-related films by year should also be deleted. Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 16:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. The scope of this list is far too large for a single list article. Ciridae (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Those in favor of deletion believe this article is too large and has too wide of a scope, arbitary, or unnecessary. I have to disagree with all of those claims. This page has merit and reliable sources to show it is notable. It is not "effectively duplicative of other content" as the nom posited, and the goal on Wikipedia should be "total inclusion" as Deepfriedokra said. Agreement with arguments by Rhododendrites and Erik here. 71.179.1.78 (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC) — 71.179.1.78 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I added the spa template since the IP editor's first edit was to add the above. Since then, they edited some more and then tried to remove this template, and then later struck it out. I had reverted the striking-out, but I decided to revert myself. I don't really find the post-!vote edits to be substantial enough to warrant the template's removal or striking out, but I'll defer to the closing admin about the weight of this particular stance compared to others' stances. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep but break into decades or something like that to keep it manageable, as this list could run into the hundreds. Topically, this is, imho, an important list to have on the site, given Wikipedia's systemic biases, and as long as there are sources to back up the list's assertions, I see nothing wrong with it. Deleting it does no one any good, saves no real space, and continues Wikipedia's unconscious overemphasis on heteronormativity.--<b style="background:#8B0000;color:#FFF;padding:1px;">Gen. Quon</b><b style="background:#2F4F4F;color:#FFF;padding:1px;">[Talk]</b>(I'm studying Wikipedia!) 17:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I usually don't vote in these things, and when I do it's to vote "delete". But after reading through this Pyxis Solitary's arguments make sense. She's put in alot of work in this article, and if they are any issues she is more than willing to fix them. Most of what I was going to say has been said by others, showcasing that the article should be kept. Rlink2 (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Arguing that a list based on sexuality is "indiscriminate", i.e. an unimportant or trivial characteristic of a person, is bordering on discriminatory, IMO. Second, if the list is unwieldly, split it into decades as others have suggested. Zaathras (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is an indiscriminate list, and one of the reasons it's an indiscriminate list is because it isn't clear who is and is not an LGBT character, especially in older movies. Unlike with real people, where we have personal statements to go by, fictional characters often don't self-identify in the film. So how would we know? Because someone who writes for an RS believes the character is LGBT and mentions that in an article? If there are doubts about a character, would editors need to compare RS that say they are vs. ones that say they're not, and try to interpret what RS that don't comment on it might think by their not addressing the subject? Here are some examples from the list as it stands that I hope illustrate where I think the problem is. Raoul Silva from Skyfall is listed in the article. No source is given, so the editor presumably included him due to the scene described at Raoul Silva (but didn't include Bond, based off that same scene). Silva's article does have sources, and the people involved in the making of the film demur about what they intended Silva's sexuality to be. So should he be on this list or not? Buffalo Bill from The Silence of the Lambs is listed as a trans woman... right beside a quote from the director saying the character isn't transgender. Pussy Galore from Goldfinger is listed, with three sources, but they're about the novel, where the character is explicitly a lesbian (or, I suppose more accurately, what Ian Fleming thought a lesbian was), but is also a gang leader instead of a pilot. This is more than just some editing problem that can be solved with better sourcing. (There is also an editing problem, but this goes beyond that.) What should be done when there is some question that a character might be intended to have been LGBT, but there aren't sources covering what the filmmakers intended? Or the filmmakers have discussed it, but without giving a clear answer? Or where the various people responsible for the film disagree with each other? The history of the way LGBT characters have been portrayed is certainly a worthy subject for an article, but this article is not that article, and I don't see how it can become that article. It's not a prose article, it's a list, and it's a list with practically no prose at the top. The "Notes" field in the list contains more blank spaces than notes, and many of the notes that do exist may be fine for the list as a list, but would not be useful for the hypothetical prose article. By way of comparison, we have an article African-American representation in Hollywood (which could certainly be both notably longer and better sourced than it currently is), but do not have an article such as List of feature films with African-American characters. Egsan Bacon (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Because someone who writes for an RS believes the character is LGBT and mentions that in an article? Yes.
 * would editors need to compare RS that say they are vs. ones that say they're not Yes. Talk pages exist.
 * No source is given So add one. If one doesn't exist, then remove it.
 * but they're about the novel Then they're not good sources for the movie. Add one. If one doesn't exist, then remove it.
 * This is more than just some editing problem that can be solved with better sourcing You have not described anything other than the most basic editing problems.
 * practically no prose at the top WP:SOFIXIT &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 13:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Egsan Bacon makes a bad argument here, not recognizing that their issues could be solved without considering alternatives to deletion. Furthermore, pages like List of black video game characters and List of black animated characters exist. The argument of Rhododendrites is tip top here, and makes valid points.128.164.108.192 (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't entirely disagree that the idea of categorizing queer characters with clear sourcing it hard, especially given the extreme importance of subtext in the history of LGBTQA+ representation in film. Have we truly captured the history of representation in film if we exclude heavily coded/implied characters but include Dumbledore? Not to mention that coding extends to characters that clearly don't belong here, nobody would suggest to add Ariel despite both versions of the story having roots in the feelings of gay men. But this is not an issue specific to this list; this is inherent to any and all lists focused on queer characters, as well as equivalent categories (and, for that matter, to an extent to the queerness of real historical life people). Do we suggest that, based on this argument, we delete all lists about queer characters and LGBTQA+ related films? I surely hope not. I am currently of undecided opinion on whether this specific list should be kept, but the importance of queer representation in media cannot simply be wiped off the face of the world's leading Encyclopedia just because sourcing it is an inconvenience and a touchy subject. Of course you're not suggesting that, but your argument follows that logic so I don't think it is well applied here.  LittleLazyLass  (Talk | Contributions) 18:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe we should rely mainy on the text. Subtext can be captured through reliable sources interpreting the media to be LGBT (we don't want to publish our own research). I don't think we should include DUmbledore, because there is no subtext IIRC. I don't think a creator should be able to declare a character gay and then the media has an LGBT character. The text in itself is unrelated to the later statements of the author, at least in that case. It makes the list less useful for those looking for actual deptctions of LGBT characters, either explicitly or implicitly. The implication should be in the film itself. I don't think we should delete all the lists, but we should continue to discuss sourcing and maybe trim the list significantly of unsourced material. Talib1101 (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Deleting this page would further reinforce the bias on this site, per Gen. Quon, and any issues with this article raised by those who want to delete it could be solved through discussion on the talk page of the List of feature films with LGBT characters. The entries are not indiscriminate, as Zaathras points to, and it is an important part of people's identities. Any substantive changes should be discussed on the talk page of the List of feature films with LGBT characters after the discussion had ended, not in this discussion.128.164.108.192 (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC) — 128.164.108.192 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Weak delete (Split). Keep it for now, but working to split it into subarticles of reasonable length. I would split it by century into two, by LGBT letter into four, or by both into eight. Once all films listed are merged into their respective lists, then redirect to a disambiguation. I guess what I'm saying is, we want this content to exist, and we want to make lists of LGBT films that are relevant to readers, but OP makes a good point about maintainability. (edited Talib1101 (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)) Talib1101 (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: List of transgender publications, List of lesbian fiction, and List of LGBT-themed speculative fiction are all good examples of more specific lists. Transgender and lesbian are for individual letters of the acronym, while speculative fiction is more specific a category than feature film. So I recommend splitting it by letter. A reader looking for feature films featuring transgender characters would have to use Ctl-F to have any chance at getting through such a long list just for the relatively fewer trans characters. Talib1101 (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I !voted above to keep, but I think that something like this is actually the best way forward. Better than my suggestions at least... Hobit (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, per many of the arguments made above. It's too broad, not encyclopedically useful, and entirely unmaintainable. Coverage of queer topics including media representation and historyis very important on Wikipedia, but this list is not a helpful way of contributing to that.  LittleLazyLass  (Talk | Contributions) 04:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How is it not "encyclopedically useful"? And how does this list not contribute to queer topics? If you think that such coverage is "very important," then it seems completely contradictory to say the list should be deleted. And if the list is "too broad" and "entirely unmaintainable" then wouldn't it make more sense to !vote to split the list as Talib1101 proposed rather than deleting it? Your argument does not make sense.71.179.1.78 (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, per WP:USELESS and WP:ATD (specifically "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."), that person's argument will likely be weighed next to nothing in the final analysis. Zaathras (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not that matters much since you're quite correct about the weight, but I've revoked my comment. After reading the arguments made more thoroughly and given the whole thing more thought I remain undecided on my stance but I think what I said above was definitely missing a lot of the nuance of the issue here. I tentatively think splitting it into lists constrained by decade or by identity would be the solution here, but I'll keep trying to organize my thoughts.  LittleLazyLass  (Talk | Contributions) 18:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. Potentially unbounded list with highly debatable inclusion criteria, likely to attract vandalism, and not overall useful. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How is the inclusion criteria "highly debatable" and how is the page not "useful"? I don't understand why you would say this. Historyday01 (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.