Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of post-Ellen American television episodes with LGBT themes


 * 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 delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

List of post-Ellen American television episodes with LGBT themes

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A list of passing mentions of homosexuality for a set of TV shows that is unusually specific. (I can understand the argument behind the post-Ellen part, but to couple that with the American restriction makes the list unnecessary. (oddly enough Queer as Folk isn't mentioned either... ) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On the fence/Neutral for now, because it's comparably well-sourced and well-written, but the incredibly long title of the article is very unusual. One might as well create a spin-off that's called "List of post-Ellen American television episodes with LGBT themes where the characters wear green pants and a dog is running around in the background". Or whatnot. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete While the coming out episode of "Ellen" may have been an LGBT milestone, TV shows with LGBT-related episodes had already been around for years. Furthermore, the vast majority of the program cited in the article have no notability in their own right. Warrah (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Until LGBTIQ, etc. people are treated with the same rights and are no longer a lower class in their own countries ... LGBT issues as mirrored back in popular culture, such as television series, like this lists encompasses, will continue to be studied and analyzed. As such, we have many sources discussing LGBT issues in modern culture, and we will continue to have these. Looking at the nature of lists on Wikipedia, they not only help organize information, they provide context of an overall theme, in this case how have LGBT themes in American television changes since the infamous Ellen coming out episode. Each item does not need to represent a stand alone article as much as show the progression of the topic discussed providing clues to navigation and development. This list is reasonably well-written, is certainly source-able and maintainable. What remains is regular editing which remains not a deletion issue. The nom may build similar lists for other countries or frankly all non-U.S. television as this list seems quite large and anything non-US would likely be split off anyway. -- Banj e  b oi   17:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Completely unreferenced, often conjectural, weirdly indiscriminate. Inconsistent inclusion criteria -- ignores shows where major/running characters are gay, ignores soap operas, ignores SNL and other comedy shows. Most of the "themes" cited are actually minor plot elements; if made comprehensive at the level of detail it currently cites, the article will be outlandishly long, exceptionally unwieldy, and completely useless. The subject is encyclopedic -- but this lst isn't. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The claim that the list is "completely unreferenced" is patently false as the article currently has a dozen footnotes and several books listed as references. The episodes themselves serve as primary sources for their content and a review of those episodes would put the lie to the claim about these being mostly "minor plot elements". The complaints about sorts of shows that the list "ignores" indicates that you are not paying attention to what the list is designed to cover. It is for episodes of series that do not regularly feature LGBT themes or characters. Otto4711 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The list itself is obviously completely unreferenced, as anyone can see by looking at it. Some of the descriptive material in the lede is footnoted, but nothing in the list itself. Using the articles as primary sources for an article like this amounts to original research and interpretation. From WP:PSTS: "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source. It is also rather odd to claim I am not "paying attention" to a point when I set out in detail the results of adherng to that point. The inclusions and exclusions are made using arbitrary and subjective criteria, and end up "gerrymandering" the list to reflect a particular point of view, a conspicuous NPOV violation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea that upon watching an episode of, say, Law & Order in which Jack McCoy tries to have same-sex marriage invalidated in New York to compel testimony from one member of a couple, one may not enter on this list "McCoy tries to have same-sex marriage declared illegal in New York in order to compel testimony from one half of a couple" without a secondary source is ludicrous on its face. What's on-screen serves as a source for what's on-screen and a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge is completely capable of verifying the contents of the episode by watching it. Are there entries on this list which you feel are making something other than descriptive claims? Which ones specifically, and why can they not be fixed through normal editing? Regardless, your reading of PSTS is prohibitively narrow and would wreak havoc on our ability to write about fiction. As for your fundamental misunderstanding of the scope of the list, it has been noted repeatedly the list was never designed to capture series with regular gay characters, which would include soap operas. These series are captured on various other lists which are linked elsewhere in the debate. If one knows of episodes of SNL which feature gay characters then there is nothing stopping you or anyone else from listing them, although given the nature of sketch comedy shows they would IMHO probably fit better on the series list. Otto4711 (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop saying I misunderstand the scope of the list. I understand how you've gerrymandered the article. I said that the criteria are so arbitrary and subject as to cross the line on policies like NPOV and NOR, and render the list unencyclopedic. The idea that "Go watch it yourself" satisfies the principles of WP:V is ludicrous. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tell you what: you stop throwing around bad-faith accusatory words like "gerrymandering" and I won't start throwing around words like "butchering zealot" and "pedantic bloviator". The parameters of the list are perfectly reasonable since the goal of the list is to examine those episodes that are distinct from the norm in their series. Complaining about omitting series which episodes all deal with LGBT issues is like complaining about a list of novelty ice cream flavors because it excludes chocolate and vanilla. And "go watch it yourself" fulfills perfectly the requirements of WP:V, specifically WP:SPS which reinforces WP:PSTS regarding the use of the episodes as sources for themselves. I am not making any claim about the episodes that cannot be verified by a reasonable person by watching the episodes. It may not be easy to watch the episodes, but availability of the sources to others is not the responsibility of the encyclopedia. Otto4711 (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Gerrymandering" as "bad faith accusatory"? That's utterly ridiculous. And given the utterly wretched job that's been done in classifying shows, the only person who could possible by insulted by using the term in this context is Elbridge Gerry, and I doubt he'll notice. NYPD Blue shouldn't be on this list; it regularly featured gay characters, including two squad commanders and the PAA played by Bill Brochtup (who appeared in 156 episodes over eleven seasons, feature-billed for half the length of the series). Neither should Homicide, which featured a plotline running over seven years involving a regular character who eventually "came out." The article is infested with arbitrary choices and classifications like these, and is unsavageable. As for your interpretation of WP:V, it amounts to "Do all the research yourself." That's not meaningful verifiability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Haw haw haw, it's funny to pretend that words don't mean what they mean. I'm not suggesting that anyone do any research, although if they choose to that is certainly welcomed and encouraged. What I am suggesting is that the possible unavailability of a particular source to a particular editor doesn't make the source unreliable not does that unavailability or the difficulty a particular editor may have in locating the source implicate WP:V. Verifiability demands that information be published in a reliable source. In the case of a TV episode, filming and/or broadcasting constitutes publication and the individual episodes are reliable sources for their own content. "Go watch it yourself" is no less reasonable that "go read the book yourself" or "go listen to the speech yourself". Otto4711 (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Benjiboi. Key sources like the Debra Kaufman article talk about how the "historic" Ellen event revolutionised the "American cultural landscape" and "how gay people are portrayed on TV, and [now they are] treated like all other characters as opposed to being marginalized." Much as I love  our articles to offer a global perspective, in this case we'd be reaching beyond the soruces if we tried to do so. Its all about US TV.  Useful list on a subject the sources show is highly noteable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't know about that title, or the formatting, but there's an FA/FL possible subject hiding in there. This article could provide a lot of background on the phenomenon. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Perfectly acceptable list article. How many things on the list got mentioned in the news, for the LGBT themes?   D r e a m Focus  02:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reading this article, one might think that a show like Will & Grace never portrayed any gay themes, because none of its episodes are listed here. Seriously, though, I can understand the existence of articles such as List of 1970s American television episodes with LGBT themes, because such themes were rare on American television in that era. But in 2009, it is not considered unusual for LGBT people to be portrayed in an American television episode. Counting and listing such episodes is meaningful as applied to earlier eras, but when such episodes become common it seems less meaningful. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It forms the end of the series of lists (List of pre-Stonewall American television episodes with LGBT themes, List of 1970s American television episodes with LGBT themes, List of 1980s American television episodes with LGBT themes, List of American television episodes with LGBT themes, 1990-1997), but seems to be approaching indiscriminate levels. I think restricting inclusion-criteria, or a restricted time-span, might help it regain focus. There were many Category:LGBT-related television channels that launched post-2000 (both internationally and in the US), so tracking "all" episodes quickly becomes impossible. I have no specific suggestions for restrictions, though limiting it to pre-2000 might work. Or merging those 1997-2000 entries into the current "1990-1997" list in a separate section, perhaps. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding was these lists might mention in the lede LGBT-focussed items, like Will & Grace, but was more to encompass episodes in series that were not known for LGBT themes, like M*A*S*H. That may have been removed or reworked at some point but made sense to me, of course then we would also have an article that listed series that were known for LGBT themes. -- Banj e  b oi   21:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See List of television shows with LGBT characters, which includes the series like QAF, Will and Grace and the like and those shows which exist on LGBT-specific networks, along with the soap operas and comedy shows, along with its spin-off lists List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters and List of made for television films with LGBT characters. Otto4711 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Clear-cut and obvious keep - as creator and primary author. The nominator offers no rationale for deletion and the statement "list of passing mentions of homosexuality" indicates a fundamental failure to grasp the function of the list. The list is capturing episodes of television series which do not regularly deal with homosexuality or LGBT issues that do on one occasion or another substantively deal with such issues. That is why QAF is not included, because no episode of that series meets the criteria. LGBT representation on American television is the subject of any number of books, articles and scholarly works so the topic is clearly notable. Whether each individual episode listed meets notability requirements on its own is not relevant. The list is named as it is and restricted to American series because "The Puppy Episode" -- in which Ellen Morgan came out concomitant with Ellen DeGeneres also coming out -- is recognized in the literature as a major turning point in the representation of LGBT people on American television. I am unaware of any similar shift in the representation of any other cultural minority group in any country that is directly attributed to a single episode of a single television series and such shifts are not discussed in any of the sources I have seen. If such sources exist then please feel free to write another list. As noted, this is part of a series of Lists of American television episodes with LGBT themes and there is no justification for deleting part of that series. At some point this list will need to be split for size reasons. My plan was to start a new list in 2010, which corresponds with the basic scope of the 1970s and 1980s lists and roughly with the pre-Ellen 1990s list. Otto4711 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe creating a template that links all the relevant lists so readers can more easily find the one they are looking for would make sense? -- Banj e  b oi   22:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Keep While there is a meaningful list to be created, the one we have amounts to a rambling list of trivia listing episodes that have any LGBT content whatsoever, no matter how trivial. There is no definition of what "LGBT themes" means, there is no definable cutoff for just how LGBT an episode needs to be and hardly any of the entries in this laundry list have any sources. This is a poorly-written and documented list that would have been deleted long ago if it had covered virtually any other grouping of TV episodes (why is there no List of post-Brown v. Board of Education American television episodes with African-American themes?. I would shift to delete in future nominations should this one result in its retention, if the critical issues with this article are not met. Alansohn (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - this business about the list capturing "trivia" and episodes whose LGBT content is "trivial" is being bandied about very freely here. I would be interested in finding out specifically which episodes included on this list contain only a "trivial" amount of LGBT content and the basis for this conclusion. Otto4711 (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The question must be asked the opposite way: What is the standard by which "LGBT themes" is measured to justify inclusion? As of now, the only standard appears to be IKIWISI. Alansohn (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. So despite insisting that this is a "list of trivia" you are unable to supply a single example of a trivial inclusion. Otto4711 (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The name of this list is simply atrocious. Secondly, I think the criteria for inclusion is overly broad. Right now it seems to only include primetime shows, though there is no indication in the title to limit e list this way. Daytime television has numerous gay characters on various shows with LGBT themes. Secondly, this list would seem to exclude shows that are primarily about LGBT characters. I'd say that every episode of The L Word, Queer As Folk, Will and Grace should be included in this list, since they are post-Ellen American television shows with episodes that deal with LGBT themes. This list also seems to exclude every single show on here! and Logo. There are also a large number of reality shows, ie Big_Brother_(U.S.) and Survivor (U.S. TV series) that have episodes that in some part deal with LGBT themes.  AniMate   22:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this should be moved to List of post-Ellen American television episodes with LGBT themes on primetime shows that do not regularly deal with LGBT themes.  AniMate   23:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Lists should not be encumbered with, IMHO, ridiculous names to appease every quibbly issue no matter the reasoning. The lede can eloquently and efficiently explain, for instance, the criteria of the present list. What AfD is to answer is can a good article on the subject be written and it's quite clear it can. What remains is clean-up through regular editing including ensuring the lede spells out issues for our readers. We do this all the time and we don't need to re-tweak the title until it is illogical. Shoot to serve our readers' best interest and go for a more general title and narrowly focus the lists in the lede if needed. -- Banj e  b oi   02:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Otto4711 and Benjiboi. Otto's response to the deletion argument "list of passing mentions of homosexuality" in which he says that the list includes entries for those series "which do not regularly deal with homosexuality or LGBT issues" highlights the rationale for the list. Benjiboi's phrase "they provide context of an overall theme" and the phrase "show the progression of the topic discussed" are important to understanding this article's notability. The deletion argument "completely unreferenced" is incorrect, as references are very obviously provided. The article is clearly notable and anything that needs cleanup or additional sourcing should be done via normal editing. Per WP:BEFORE and WP:DEL. — Becksguy (talk) 04:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If references are "very obviously provided," why is there not a single footnote in the list itself? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Likely as they're not needed. It would be nice to have them there just to confirm we aren't making anything up. Is there actually any content that you dispute is true? Perhaps mentioning on the list talkpage alerting which plot summary you dispute would be more constructive. -- Banj e  b oi   16:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Secondary source references are needed, per WP:NOR, for all "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." The assertion that a "theme" is present in any creative work, TV episode, novel, song, whatever, is plainly such a claim. This is a clearcut policy issue, not a question of what individual users find self-evident or not. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you likely mean well but your interpretation that the rather innocuous synopsis are somehow interpreting something thus violating OR seems misplaced. IMHO they are too short but I accept this is done exactly to avoid Undue and OR. -- Banj e  b oi   21:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:PSTS, a television episode serves as a reliable source for its own contents. The episode may be viewed by any independent editor to verify its contents. There is no need for a separate secondary source for each individual episode. The only time such sourcing would be necessary would be in the event of there being additional information about the episode beyond plot information, e.g. on the 1970s list there are comments about episodes of All in the Family, Barney Miller, Marcus Welby and others that are beyond the plot summary and are footnoted. There are no such instances of non-plot information in the post-Ellen list. There is one such example on this list and it is footnoted. Otto4711 (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dead wrong. WP:PSTS allows only purely descriptive claims; the assertion that a particular "theme" is present and significant in an episode falls into the category of "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" which require secondary sourcing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh my god, by that logic we could never have any information about the genre of any work of fiction. Do we really need a secondary source that Star Wars is science fiction or that Shane is a Western? Otto4711 (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's tendentious nonsense, and it certainly doesn't reflect consensus practice or the principles behind WP:RS and WP:V. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you can't cite a song genre to the song. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete whats next? A list of post-Godfather television episodes with Italian-American themes?  This is a poorly defined, ridiculously long list (that would be twice as long with more research) that serves no encyclopedia purpose. - Schrandit (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:WAX is not a compelling argument. If there are multiple reliable sources that discuss how the representation of Italian Americans on television changed and was influenced by The Godfather then by all means let's have a list. The length of a list has no bearing on whether it should exist. The "encyclopedia [sic] purpose" of the list is to aid people who are interested in when and how American television series that do not usually deal with homosexuality address the subject. Several books have been published on the subject so clearly there is interest. Otto4711 (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Response to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: In the article there is a section titled "References" that list six books used as references, and another section titled "Notes" that contain twelve citations used as references, some from the New York Times, Time magazine, and other reliable sources. Having inline citations—or footnote summary—may be a preferred style vs. general reference summary, but inline cites are not mandatory and both are acceptable, per WP:CITE. — Becksguy (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The footnotes never go to episode content; all but two do exclusively to the lede, the other two support references to external events, not episode content. The books generally listed as references are not claimed to support the assertions regarding episode content; as the article's principal editor asserted, the episodes themselves are used as primary sources -- as is clear from his tendentious argument, above, that characterizing a "theme" of an episode and determining the theme's importance involves no analysis, synthesis, interpretation or evaluation. Besides, given the publication dates of the books, it's utterly foolish to suggest they support the full set of episode descriptions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous. It is not original research to watch an episode of television that centers around a character's coming out and characterize it as having a gay theme. That's like demanding a secondary source calling We Wish You a Merry Christmas a Christmas song before identifying it as such. It's self-evidently a Christmas song based on its content and the episodes on this list are self-evidently gay themed based on theirs. Otto4711 (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your quarrel is with the policy itself, which is pretty explicit on this point; there's no exception for "self-evident" commentary (which would lead to interminable tendentious debates on what is self-evident, of course). But how is it "self-evident" that "a gay couple's valuable dogs are kidnapped" is a significant theme rather than a minor plot device? "A time travel back to a Nazi prison camp shows a brief scene in which a prisoner is wearing the pink triangle"? "RuPaul guest stars as 'Bob'"? "One of the victims is a gay woman"? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My quarrel is with your interpretation of the policy, which I find both incorrect and heavy-handed. If you question particular entries on the list then resolve the situation through normal editing. Otto4711 (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, the irony. A short piece of plainly stated English text requires interpretation although what it says is quite "self-evident," but determining the themes of creative works and the relative importance of the themes doesn't?


 * Delete because the title is WP:OR. On whose authority did Ellen Degeneres become such a critical dividing line? Mangoe (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * From the lede - Described as "the most hyped, anticipated, and possibly influential gay moment on television",[6] Ellen Morgan's coming out has been credited for spawning a boom in programming featuring LGBT characters.[7] -- Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   21:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is an issue with the title (and I don't agree there is, per Benjiboi), that would be a reason to fix it, with talk page discussion, not to delete the article. Per WP:DEL, which says: If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. — Becksguy (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Poorly defined, and utterly ridiculous. What next, then? "List of post-Friends American television episode with shit themes"? :P Ironholds (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Blatant OR. no evidence of notability at all. NBeale (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:N requires reliable sources independent of the subject that substantively discusses the subject. There are several books that are about how LGBT people are portrayed in non-LGBT television episodes, so clearly the subject is notable. You have offered nothing to back up the claim that this is OR, blatant or otherwise. The prose is thoroughly sourced and the episodes serve as sources for their own content. Otto4711 (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as original research, mostly per mangoe. Also I don't see what all of these episodes have to do with each other. "LGBT themes" is vague and indiscriminate. I don't doubt that the topic of how homosexuality has been portrayed on television is notable, but this isn't the proper way to present that information.  Them  From  Space  04:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mangoe's OR claim is based on the use of "The Puppy Episode" as a dividing line. There are already two sources in the article that explain the cultural significance of the episode and the event. There are plenty more. What the episodes have to do with each other is that they are episodes of television series that do not usually deal with LGBT issues, but have done so in a particular episode. The information is useful for those interested in tracking how such series dealt with the material in general and is also useful for tracking trends in LGBT representation and for comparing how episodes of various series aired in a similar timeframe handled the issues. Otto4711 (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Its important to understand that No original research in no way prohibits editors from relaying self evident facts without support from secondary sources! If it was prohibited, literally tens of thousands of articles with synopsises of important primary works would be in violation of policy! While most of those articles dont analyse or evaluate the work as such, they do advise on the theme in a deeper sense than merely saying  "this chapter deals with homosexual love". And rightly so. If we enforced policy the way some delete voters are arguing, wed have to rip a huge chunk out of the heart of this project – a good encyclopaedia gives summaries of self evident truths about  a topic so the reader doesn't have to digest the whole primary source  - but secondary sources by their nature rarely waste time advising on the self evident, so the effort needed to find all the required sources for a  "Hullaballo" interpretation of policy would be totally prohibitive for a volunteer project. Its great to see collaborative editors like Otto trying to find a middle ground with the deletion camp, but in this case it would be damaging to the encyclopaedia to compromise with them at all. IMO our clear message should be that policy and consensus are 100% behind keeping this article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggestion - the sticking point for some of the deleters is the use of the phrase "LGBT themes". While I of course strongly disagree that the phrase is problematic, I believe the issues can be resolved by renaming the list to something like "...episodes with LGBT story lines" or "LGBT plots" and restricting the list to episodes of series that do not generally deal with LGBT issues but have a primary or secondary story line that is LGBT in nature. Certainly even those who have trouble identifying a gay theme will have no problem identifying a gay story line. Otto4711 (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dangerous misunderstanding of Policy by delete voters
 * Delete. The problem here is WP:OR/WP:SYNTHESIS on multiple levels. The list is indisciminate/synthesis since it does not demonstrate that each member of the list got its inspiration (or that its producers got the courage) from the Ellen show. The list is indiscriminate in that many of the members are not themes. For example; on CSI: NYs episode "Trapped", the killer is a lesbian. Seriously? Ellen's show made that happen? And how is that a theme? Abductive  (reasoning) 02:32, 4 December 2009 (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.