Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender-related films


 * 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 a wintry keep.  Ƙ ɽ  ɨ  ɱ  ρ  ᶓ  ȶ  19:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

List of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender-related films

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Per WP:NOT. This is a directory of a certain type of films. H irohisatTalk Page 02:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. WP:IINFO. --Evb-wiki 02:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - List of films on various topics/relationships are common and accepted; there are hundreds of others (List of biker films, List of animal films, List of sports films, List of Japanese films) - why is the list of LGBT films being singled out? Bad faith? AU Tiger » talk 02:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's bad faith. Many "List of X films" have been deleted for being irrelevant intersections, too ORish, having too vague inclusion criteria, etc.  In general I've been opposed to these deletions, but many of them have nevertheless been successful, so I don't think it's bad faith for this user to nominate it. --JayHenry 04:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I may have been a bit reactionary due to the late hour with the bad faith comment; retracted. AU Tiger » talk 15:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with Autiger, unless we're deleting all List of ______ related films type lists Rackabello 03:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per above. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a very valid argument. I'm assuming good faith here, as I doubt that the nominator has anything against LGBT culture as a whole, and just "singled out" this list because it's an indiscriminate collection of loosely-associated topics. The other lists of "____-related films" are also indiscriminate collections of loosely-associated topics, and probably should be nuked as well. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll acknowledge the basic premise of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, although I'd argue the difference in scale for 'Lists of xxx films' implies validity. Regardless, as others point out, queer cinema is a pretty well-established topic/genre with at least one book and a couple of documentaries  covering the subject. AU Tiger  » talk 15:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, clearly a case of WP:IINFO. Indiscriminate list (by the way, I have nothing at all against LGBT culture either). Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NOT clearly does not apply here.  Citi Cat  03:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Like almost all these "List of X films" it's simply not original research and simply not indiscriminate. --JayHenry 04:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Of course this is list of a certain type of films, just like Westerns or Musicals are a certain type of film. Queer cinema is a notable genre of film covered in many reliable published sources; they don't have whole festivals revolving around the very films on this list for nothing. This stinks of either Deletionism of lists run amok or a simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT. VanTucky  (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep however there's no need to list all the films in two kinds of order. - Gilliam 05:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above-- Sef rin gle Talk 06:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per VanTucky. Irk(talk) 06:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per VanTucky. If a genre is recognized by reliable sources, and this one clearly is even with a quick Google search, a list is neither indiscriminate nor unnecessary. -- Charlene 06:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Wouldnt a category be much more suited for this purpose? Corpx 06:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It has long been established that lists and categories should coexist, unless something's changed when I wasn't looking. &mdash;Xezbeth 07:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fairly obvious keep Nominator is a new editor and appears to misunderstand what a directory is. Nothing in WP:NOT suggests this should be deleted. SP-KP 09:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this or delete all other 'List of X Film' articles. (Which I wouldn't terribly mind doing, personally). CaveatLectorTalk 10:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If you are for the deletion of articles like this, you should probably make your "vote" delete as the deletion process does not cite precedent. -- Jimmi Hugh 13:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Far too indiscriminate in my opinion. The list is definetly not specific to films which focus purely upon the topics but could also easily include films with characters of such orientation. Also, just because certain campaigns and people feel it necesary to link Lesbians, Homosexuals, Bisexuals and Transgender people under a single banner is no reason for Wikipedia to indiscriminately combine information in the same way. -- Jimmi Hugh 13:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Veiled incivility is still incivility, please refrain from making accusations about what 'certain projects' want to do or don't want to do. The articles title DOES say 'related' films and not 'films with LGBT characters', so your reasoning that it is extremely easy to add a film doesn't pan out (if a fil, obviously doesn't belong, we can remove it).  I'll also remind you thought IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion.  All that being said, I said that I wouldn't mind deleting all 'List of x films' articles because categories would do a MUCH better job at the purpose these articles claim to fulfill.  However, it rather irks me that the LGBT article in this batch was seemingly targeted here, and if all of the others stay, this one certainly should to.  My 'vote' (I take it by your scare quotes that you know we are not voting, only discussing) remains as it was.  CaveatLectorTalk 14:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Jimmi, if you feel LGBT is a fringe neologism fit for deletion, go ahead and nominate it for an AFD. See what happens. The term is not only patently entrenched in culture, but it is a term of self-categorization by LGBT individuals. It's hardly a term forced on individuals and a community by some lobbying group. Once more, your OR arguments about the fraudulence of the LGBT categorization have nothing to do with deleting this list, and you only betray your intolerance and ignorance of common LGBT issues . Even if the term did not exist, a list of films significantly dealing with the most statistically prevalent sexual minorities would be fit for inclusion. As to the specificity of the list, how much more specific can you get than films only dealing with lesbian, gay, trans and bisexual themes? It's like saying a List of modern black and white films is unspecific. VanTucky  (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * At the risk of being called a bigit myself, I believe all Jimmi was pointing out was that, although these groups are joined by similar social (and political) issues, they are different and distinct groups. I don't see us merging the individual gay, lesbian, bisexuality and transgender articles into LGBT. This article possibly lumps The Crying Game, Relax...It's Just Sex, Better Than Chocolate, Lost and Delirious, Frisk, Total Eclipse, Threesome, Ode to Billy Joe, etc. (off the top of my head) together, when some have very little in common. BTW, ignorance does not always equal intolerance. --Evb-wiki 16:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would never call anyone a bigit, and bigot was your word, not mine. I'm not labeling Jimmi with what is most certainly a perjorative, so I retract what you seem to think are too personal of comments.
 * Just because you pick out the most seemingly unrelated films from the list, does not a rational statement about the total relation of all the films in the list make. Of course some are going to be more related to LGBT themes than others, and quite possibly the list needs trimming. But needing a small amount of cleanup doesn't mean that the entire article begs deletion because it is a vague subject. The problem is that some of these films may not fit the definition of the list, not that the list has no clear definition. But most importantly, your characterization that a film about bisexuality and a film about homosexuality are not related is just a personal point of view. The grouping of LGBT together is not questionable, to say the least. VanTucky  (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per others. Structured and comprehensive list that serves an obvious purpose. PC78 15:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep for a number of reasons; (a) unlike the other "films about" lists, these are not films "about homosexuality", there are numerous books written on the subject so that we know there are sources (are they used, well, not as much as they ought to be but the do exist) so no reason to delete on the usual score, (b) the genre is well-known and the subject of numerous WP:RSes, and I'll also add (c) the stealth nomination "added tag" was the edit comment for the AfD, contrary to our policies, for something as likely as this to be controversial I can assume good faith and say that this was just extremely bad form. Carlossuarez46 17:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.