Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBT characters in video games

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

The result was keep. Though further discussion and improvements needed Sam Walton (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT characters in video games[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yes, this is a case where deletion is cleanup. Why? To the extent this is not a WP:CFORK of LGBT themes in video games, it is fancruft and an increasingly unmaintainable list.

As elsewhere in popular culture, LGBT representation (particularly romance) in video games is increasing to the extent that it is now more remarkable if a recent Western game that includes romance options does not allow for LGB romance - and this trend is, if anything, set to increase. This makes the list unfeasible to maintain after about the 2010s, as can be seen from the amount of (mostly unsourced and trivial) content listed for the most recent years. There has been an OR tag on the list since 2013, which indicates that there are not enough people interested in the topic to maintain the list in anything approaching reasonable quality.

The synoptic approach to the topic in LGBT themes in video games is much more appropriate for an encyclopedia, as it discourages endless lists of minor characters and/or WP:OR speculation (e.g., from the article: "In Dead Rising 2, it's hinted that two minor villains are in an incestuous lesbian relationship"). This list should be redirected to LGBT themes in video games, and perhaps some content (mostly about early examples and firsts) can be merged to there or to the individual game articles. Perhaps a more focused list such as of transgender characters could be feasible. But as it is I don't see this list as particularly useful. Sandstein 23:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Definitely fails WP:CFORK. TheKaphox T 23:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN - the concept of LGBT characters is notable when treated as a group, as shown by the references both in this article and at LGBT themes in video games (as was already agreed upon in the first nomination), and because the arguments given by nomination are traditionally considered as ones you should not make, as it explicitly contradicts the WP:NOTPERFECT policy. Moreover I don't think it's a coincidence that this deletion is posted right after the possibility for an article cleanup has been discussed at the article's talk page. That Sandstein has decided to start this potentially destructive "deletion is cleanup" discussion without commenting the different possibilities first at the talk page is extremely rude. Diego (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) BTW I *have* been regularly performing maintenance on this article, including the detailed structuring per year and adding some topic-defining references, but that's obviously not enough effort for Sandstein. May I suggest that you could participate and do some cleanup yourself, instead of posting a menacing "clean it up NOW, or else" AfD? Diego (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that discussion you mention. I noticed this list in a "see also" link in a related article. As concerns WP:IMPERFECT, no article must be perfect at all times, but if an article looks so bad for so long, it's clear that there is not enough interest among editors to maintain it in a decent shape. In such cases, we're better off with no article (for the time being) rather than an embarrassingly crappy one. Sandstein 13:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you go posting deletion discussions in articles without first checking what discussion is going on at their talk pages? I know my posts above are harsh, but may I request that you retract this AfD and discuss it there? I do NOT believe that removing access to the current list of characters and references, which is what would come from a deletion, will do any good in helping build a better article. (Oh wait you're an admin, right? Deleting content doesn't affect you as it does us mere mortals with standard edit rights). Diego (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at worst Merge Listing of characters that have been confirmed (either direct in-game, or through developer comments) to be LGBT is completely reasonable for a list associated with the theme of LGBT depiction in video games. It should not be written as proseline, but a table would be better. It is not so much a CFORK (as only a few examples are highlighted on the theme page), but more an exhaustive listing of known characters, which would have been reasonable to include at the end of the theme's page if there was space. Perhaps if this was table-fied and the non-sourced entries removed it would be short enough to re-include on the theme page (hence the merge). --MASEM (t) 13:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it passes WP:LISTN. If its getting "un-maintainable", then I recommend setting up some inclusion criteria rather than deletion. (Limiting it to just core cast or characters or something.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:LISTN. The list needs work, and likely should be reformatted into a table as Masem suggests, but the subject of LGBT characters in video games as a group is clearly notable. I agree with Serge that the list needs an inclusion criteria that includes sourcing showing the list members are shown/known to be LGBT, not just hinted or rumored. Following cleanup or format change it should probably move back to "List of..." too -- ferret (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – even just on the value of WP:TNT. I'm not hellbent against such a list, the current thing has no inclusion criteria or working basis. Listing Big Gay Al because he appears in South Park Rally; having a whole paragraph on Namco High while we don't even have an article on it; and just generally listing dozens of unsourced items; it doesn't even describe how the character Jean Armstrong is LGBT; just the line "strongly hinted to be homosexual, although he denies this"; Abu'l Nuquod is original research to the next level; etc, etc. Surely, if this article uses sources that aren't used in LGBT themes in video games, that content can be merged, but I don't believe the current list has any value (and it may even be downright offensive or dangerous). ~Mable (chat) 14:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There are definitely a lot of entries that have to be removed from this list based on speculation or implication, and in other cases, there's a lot of excessive details to try to justify that. This list probably can be cut to at least a third of its current size after stripping away the OR entries. But there are cases of characters confirmed to be LGBT within game or by its developers (the Persona 4 being one I know we can source readily off the top of my head). Cleanup is absolutely necessary but deletion is not. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:TNT is something you cite where there's virtually nothing of redeemable value at an article, so much so that you may as well just start over from scratch. That's a bit off the mark when you've got plenty of legit entries that can easily be reliable sourced (Persona 4, Fire Emblem Awakening and Fates.) Your stance (and the nomination in general) flies in the face of WP:NOTCLEANUP. Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know the idea that "this is useful information" doesn't get much traction among most Wikipedians, but by the same token the argument that "this is not useful" should never be the basis for deletion. This list *is* valuable, and contains a large number of verifiable LGBT characters that could or are already sourced as such; removing those low quality entries that can't be made verifiable is possible, but this is not the venue to do it.

There is a reason why the policy accepted by the community explicitly warns against using AfD instead of proper content maintenance for legitimate topics, and I see no arguments in the delete comments that would support following a different approach this time. Nobody has ever tried to perform a systematic cleanup, so deciding in advance without ever trying that it can't possibly be done is a large stretch IMHO. It is certainly hard work, and I found it daunting to do it alone on my own, that's why it never got made; but now that we have the attention, maybe the editors here may volunteer to get the thing in better shape, rather than sweeping everything under the rug? Diego (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts were not properly displayed through policy and, well, I don't know what to do with this. I just hope it gets either improved or deleted soon because, as I said, this list is downright dangerous >.> But yeah, neutral, I guess. ~Mable (chat) 18:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I've already started trimming out some of the worst examples, and I've started up a discussion on inclusion criteria here. Anyone feel free to contribute there too. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't see much discussion of here is that the list is quickly becoming unmaintainably large even if much of it could be sourced. As LGB characters become increasingly common (T probably not so much), to say nothing of homo-erotic innuendo etc., this list is increasingly WP:IINFO, just as much as a "list of male video game characters" would be. I agree we should cover significant LGBT characters, particularly early and pioneering examples, as part of a discussion of how video games as a cultural medium address LGBT issues, but just making a flat list seems ... intellectually undisciplined, and completely unreflective of how significant (or not) any individual character may be. Sandstein 15:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think people want to remove all context of the entries with a bare list, I think they just want to improve the formatting some. I mean, right now, its basically written as a list already, but it lacks any sort of bullet-points or list formatting. The point would be to either convert it to actual prose with paragraphs, or add actual bulletpoints and clean it up a bit. Moving in the direction of a list may make more sense because trimming may be the way to go on a number of entries. For example - the entry related to Chrono Trigger/Chrono Cross - there may be a valid entry there, but there's a lot of WP:OR to trim out too. Sergecross73 msg me 15:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That's because deletion discussion is not the place to discuss inclusion criteria for notable lists. Up until recently the total amount of these characters was noticiably low, much like female protagonists not too far ago. Now that it's a more visible topic, it's time to define and enforce a more strict criterion. Again, none of this should be the focus of an AfD discussion that should be about the relevancy of the topic as a whole, not the current status of the page. This is the wrong venue for this case, until AfD is definitely changed to "Articles for Discussion". Diego (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't want to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but see Lists of LGBT figures in fiction and myth to see how these lists exist for other media types. The article needs reworked, reformatted, cleaned up, sure. But that's not a valid deletion rationale. All of the related lists use a table format to organize even larger lists of characters than this, and this list should follow suit. An inclusion criteria, per WP:LISTN, can be draft to help aid with managing the list contents. But this isn't where we should be discussing cleanup. -- ferret (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:LISTN, but yes cleanup and a discussion on inclusion criteria is definitely needed. ansh 666 19:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the only list of its kind. These kinds of lists are vital to LGBT visibility. It should be cleaned up and improve the citations but deleting it is a form of LGBT erasure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.13.80 (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rework. An exhaustive list is potentially not feasible or maintainable, but a list of major notable characters which have caused controversy or otherwise been notably LBG+ is a useful article. A potential candidate for WP:NUKEANDPAVE? --Indrora (talk) 06:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree, the article is in pretty bad shape. But there are plenty of sources that show there are LGBT characters in video games. We're also showing the evolution of the depiction of those kind of characters: from offensively comedically, to well-grounded and thought provoking. I've removed some of the more nonsense examples just now. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not seeing a solid deletion rationale. Artw (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN and all of the above. JAGUAR 17:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm definitely sympathetic to the nom's thoughts on LGB characters becoming extremely common now, and this list swelling to encompass a huge number of games going forward, to the point of unmanageability. I've done my fair share of sourcing valid entries and trimming junk from the article in the past, and always plan to come back and do more. I think a good option could be to limit it to early and/or groundbreaking characters, but drawing up criteria that don't slip into WP:OR territory seems challenging. But I would say that can all be hammered out on the talk page. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename to "History of LGBT characters in video games", and cleanup like so: There is a Platonic ideal version of this article that frames the trajectory of LGBT characters (and/or themes, vis a vis the LGBT themes in games article) within the context of the larger cultural acceptance of LGBT people in popular culture. This version is not a list or listicle, but an actual discussion of individual characters of impact, the academic discussion of them, and their effect on both other games and media in general. In no version is it acceptable to make a taxonomist's indiscriminate documentation of every single instance of an LGBT character in a video game. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I hope this AfD doesn't turn out to be like the one I did to Sexuality in Star Trek. In that (and in the previous two AfD nominations of the article), editors said that it just needed a rewrite. Unfortunately, nothing has been done to rewrite it at all (aside from a few minor edits) since that AfD, and it was likely the same story with the other two. I have no further comment on the matter at this time. — Gestrid (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was exactly what I was worried about, though I am already pretty happy with the improvements this article did get. If the article gets improved in this manner every time it gets nominated for deletion, it may become an FL by the time it is nominated for the first time :p A girl can hope. ~Mable (chat) 10:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.