713:. It doesn't say unverified, meaning currently not verified, it says unverifiable, which means it can't be verified. Not the same thing at all. All this boils down to a couple of concepts: AfD is not for cleanup, needs improvement != needs deletion, and deletion should be the last resort, not the first. I might also point out that this article is a B class article in
287:- no sources that discuss sexuality in Star Trek? You mean other than the sources which quote the creator of Star Trek on the topic, the sources that quote others involved in the creation of Star Trek on the topic, the sources that discuss the efforts of people within ST production and fandom to convince TPTB to include an unambiguously LGBT character and so on?
761:- this article does not need deletion it needs a serious rewrite. The lead is awful and there are far too many unsourced statements. But once again these are not reasons for deletion, since (as pointed out a number of times above) the article is sourced and notable. I would also suggest the article be retitled as: 'depictions of sexuality in Star Trek'--
601:- First time I have ever put "strong" into a keep vote. I am amazed that this is even being considered for deletion. It is well written, well referenced, and and shows (as Dev920 points out) why we are better than a paper encyclopedia. If there are concerns about original research, then people should look for cites rather than nominating for deletion.
456:. At the absolute very most this deserves two lines on the show's main page saying words to the effect of "some sexual encounters occur, they can be inter-species but are very rarely gay" although to be honest if each individual LGBT or quasi-LGBT sexual encounter in question is notable then it's going to get covered in the episode's article anyway.
170:
and for a franchise that has run for decades, it's entirely possible for there to be reliable sources for this - and what we're considering is not the rejection of the article in its current state but the categorical rejection of the entire topic, so per The Rules what's important isn't as much what
508:
And even more to the point, Aloctopus is mistaking what is or isn't addressed in a work of fiction with critical commentary about it. Star Trek could have all gay characters or no gay characters, and it would be irrelevant to this CFD if there are a lot of publications discussion sexuality on Star
704:
I don't think I've ever seen
Infinitely used as a qualifier for a AfD !vote. Keep per other keep rationale. The article is basically notable and has references to establish that notability, however, it does need additional references. Lacking intrinsic notability is the one problem that can't be
194:
The
Knowledge deletion policy describes how material which does not meet the relevant content criteria is identified and removed from Knowledge. Reasons for deletion include but are not limited to violation of copyright, content that does not belong in an encyclopedia, content not verifiable in a
332:
as AfD is not for cleanup. Sexual orientation issues for Star Trek have been widely discussed both in the media by sociologists. The topic is notable - we should not delete an article simply because coming up with a satisfactory title for it is difficult. Tag for cleanup, remove OR but keep the
130:
issues. First of all, the topic "sexuality in Star Trek" doesn't deserve an article because there are no reliable sources that discuss "sexuality in Star Trek" as its own topic. As for balance issues, instead of talking about sexuality as a whole the article is mostly speculation about which
705:
fixed (and that's not the case here), the rest (RS, COI, POV, etc), if they exist, can be dealt with by improving the article. I agree with
Benjiboi that WP:AFD says that fixing or tagging is preferred to deletion for an article than be improved. In
200:
discusses whether the article in its current form should be deleted and is not a referendum on the topic itself, though if the article is deleted for notability concerns, no such future article should exist that does not rectify the concerns.
587:
I found this to be a very interesting article. In fact, articles such as these are why
Knowledge is better than the EB - and it has more references than a typical EB article too. Certainly one that should kept, not deleted.
797:
for now. The article seems to contain a lot of wishful thinking. It is rather long considering the amount of sourcing (shortening by 50% might be considered). The references ought to be formatted using
150:
223:
But lack of references is not a reason for deletion; it's a reason to clean-up, if it can be shown that the references for the topic exist thus demonstrating notability & RS/V-ability. --
657:
if an article can be improved through regular editing it's not a good candidate for AfD. This article needs better writing and possibly some structure work but hardly a reason for deletion.
686:
I just added 9 cites from the academic literature to assist with the rewrite. These 9 were pulled from MLA Bibliography; probably film studies & cultural studies DBs will be even
211:
115:
180:
Ooh! I found this in another Star Trek article's reference section: "Constance Penley (1997). NASA/Trek: Popular
Science and Sex in America. Verso, 130. ISBN 0860916170." --
376:: Lots of secondary sources, and such weighty subjects to be covered, as one of the first inter-racial kisses (some say, *the* first) on broadcast television. --
88:
83:
92:
131:
characters might be LGBT and what moments might be considered "LGBT moments". Literally hundreds of unsourced statements, most of which are baseless
75:
545:
such articles. This sort of deletion will strip
Knowledge of academic relevance and leave only the articles that include plot summaries. --
714:
509:
Trek -- which there are. It's kind of ironic that in one of the few places in
Knowledge's coverage of fictional topics where the
421:
17:
743:, looks to have 16 sources right now. Don't know if they are reliable, but still, that is up to the nominator to point out.--
318:
881:
856:
844:
832:
815:
789:
769:
747:
735:
721:
694:
681:
661:
643:
620:
605:
593:
579:
549:
503:
482:
473:
460:
428:
401:
380:
368:
356:
344:
324:
291:
279:
259:
243:
227:
218:
205:
184:
175:
160:
139:
79:
57:
414:
899:
413:
No acceptable deletion rationale has been given. Article may require cleanup, but this isn't the place for that.
36:
898:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
677:
with my own two eyes -- and I'm talking about academic literature not fanzines. Will work on refs section. --
841:
299:: This is a totally notable topic. If you find that sources are missing or there's OR, that's a reason for
840:-- it was well-sourced before a bunch of other references were added. Rewrite as necessary, don't delete.--
71:
63:
811:
478:
My apologies, that was a bit ambiguous of me because I missed a couple of words out. Now corrected.
852:. Wow. Amazed this was even nominated. It needs work but it is definitely an encyclopedic topic. --
340:
52:
782:
658:
635:
530:
453:
314:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
877:
377:
353:
240:
823:
Almost all of the problems with the article are better solved by editing than by deletion.
807:
522:
445:
252:
630:
per above. Clean it up (there seem to be sources and topic is notable), don't delete it.
853:
828:
799:
526:
479:
457:
449:
365:
335:
272:
256:
127:
49:
778:
732:
718:
691:
678:
654:
631:
546:
500:
470:
441:
288:
268:
224:
202:
197:
190:
157:
136:
123:
671:
there are no reliable sources that discuss "sexuality in Star Trek" as its own topic
195:
reliable source, and unreferenced negative content in biographies of living persons.
803:
786:
706:
566:
518:
437:
309:
132:
352:: Needs a clean-up and a lot more sources, but it's definitely a notable topic. --
109:
873:
872:
universe and the real world - are of vital importance to the series as a whole.
762:
616:
602:
589:
398:
215:
181:
172:
364:
There are already plenty of sources in the article establishing notability.
824:
744:
276:
781:. This article is about a major theme in a major cultural artifact, per
802:. I'm not sure that everything included under External Links would pass
615::This article has just been made WP:LGBT's Collaboration of the Month.
892:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
275:
problems. Knowledge is not the place for this kind of thing.
469:
You're mistaking sexual activity with sexual orientation.
868:
was originally based one, human sexuality - both in the
497:
you're mistaking sexual activity with sexual orientation
452:
as well as this article being out on the extreme end of
166:
Don't they? There are sources for depictions of race in
255:
and original research issues, amongst other problems.
105:
101:
97:
653:. Article needs help but who amongst us doesn't. Per
717:, which means it's received project assessment. —
210:Hmm? My experience is completely the opposite. See
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
711:...content not verifiable in a reliable source...
902:). No further edits should be made to this page.
537:articles that rely on the published literature
709:it also says as one of the reasons to delete:
239:as original research with a tad of synthesis.
214:about a then-horrible article on a sex act. --
151:list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions
690:fruitful but I was in MLA Bib at the time. --
8:
517:for the article, that someone would argue
864:-- As social issues are the core of what
513:of the article isn't the majority of the
171:the article is but what it can become. --
149:: This debate has been included in the
669:- Nominator is incorrect in asserting
7:
24:
565:— clean it up; don't delete it.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
882:04:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
857:00:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
845:21:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
833:23:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
816:22:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
790:20:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
770:16:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
748:16:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
736:16:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
722:16:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
695:17:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
682:14:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
662:11:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
644:11:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
621:11:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
606:10:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
594:17:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
580:15:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
550:14:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
504:02:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
483:18:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
474:14:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
461:13:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
429:06:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
402:12:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
381:05:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
378:Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick.
369:22:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
357:19:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
345:16:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
325:15:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
292:13:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
280:09:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
260:08:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
244:04:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
228:14:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
219:23:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
206:22:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
185:21:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
176:21:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
161:11:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
140:18:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
58:04:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
919:
495:Uh huh, see the thing is,
731:- Sourced and notable. —
191:From the deletion policy:
895:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
541:fictional workers; not
563:Infinitely Strong Keep
72:Sexuality in Star Trek
64:Sexuality in Star Trek
619:(Have a nice day!)
592:(Have a nice day!)
189:No, you are wrong.
389:That's covered in
642:
426:
163:
154:
124:original research
910:
897:
767:
640:
634:
576:
573:
425:
422:
419:
343:
323:
322:
155:
145:
113:
95:
55:
34:
918:
917:
913:
912:
911:
909:
908:
907:
906:
900:deletion review
893:
763:
707:Deletion policy
636:
574:
571:
423:
415:
334:
312:
308:
86:
70:
67:
53:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
916:
914:
905:
904:
887:
885:
884:
859:
847:
835:
818:
792:
772:
751:
750:
738:
725:
724:
699:
698:
697:
673:; I've read a
664:
647:
646:
624:
623:
609:
608:
596:
582:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
506:
488:
487:
486:
485:
464:
463:
431:
407:
406:
405:
404:
397:check that. --
384:
383:
371:
359:
347:
327:
294:
282:
262:
246:
234:
233:
232:
231:
230:
221:
198:AfD in general
187:
164:
120:
119:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
915:
903:
901:
896:
890:
889:
888:
883:
879:
875:
871:
867:
863:
860:
858:
855:
851:
848:
846:
843:
842:uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs
839:
836:
834:
830:
826:
822:
819:
817:
813:
809:
805:
801:
796:
793:
791:
788:
784:
780:
776:
773:
771:
768:
766:
760:
756:
753:
752:
749:
746:
742:
739:
737:
734:
730:
727:
726:
723:
720:
716:
712:
708:
703:
700:
696:
693:
689:
685:
684:
683:
680:
676:
672:
668:
665:
663:
660:
656:
652:
649:
648:
645:
641:
639:
633:
629:
626:
625:
622:
618:
614:
611:
610:
607:
604:
600:
597:
595:
591:
586:
583:
581:
577:
568:
564:
561:
560:
551:
548:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
512:
507:
505:
502:
498:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
484:
481:
477:
476:
475:
472:
468:
467:
466:
465:
462:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
434:Strong Delete
432:
430:
427:
420:
418:
412:
409:
408:
403:
400:
396:
392:
388:
387:
386:
385:
382:
379:
375:
372:
370:
367:
363:
360:
358:
355:
351:
348:
346:
342:
339:
338:
331:
328:
326:
320:
316:
311:
306:
302:
298:
295:
293:
290:
286:
283:
281:
278:
274:
270:
266:
263:
261:
258:
254:
250:
247:
245:
242:
238:
235:
229:
226:
222:
220:
217:
213:
209:
208:
207:
204:
199:
196:
192:
188:
186:
183:
179:
178:
177:
174:
169:
165:
162:
159:
152:
148:
144:
143:
142:
141:
138:
134:
129:
125:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
56:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
894:
891:
886:
869:
865:
861:
849:
837:
820:
794:
774:
764:
758:
754:
740:
728:
715:LGBT Studies
710:
701:
687:
674:
670:
666:
650:
637:
627:
612:
598:
584:
570:
562:
542:
538:
534:
533:... We need
514:
510:
496:
433:
416:
410:
394:
390:
373:
361:
349:
336:
329:
304:
300:
296:
284:
264:
248:
236:
193:
167:
146:
133:weasel words
121:
45:
43:
31:
28:
862:Strong Keep
838:Strong keep
783:WP:OUTCOMES
729:Strong Keep
702:Strong Keep
651:Strong keep
599:Strong Keep
531:WP:Fancruft
374:Strong Keep
354:Brian Olsen
297:Strong Keep
267:. Serious
241:Majoreditor
126:issues and
808:EdJohnston
567:Kurt Weber
122:Plenty of
870:Star Trek
866:Star Trek
854:Fang Aili
480:A1octopus
458:A1octopus
417:faithless
366:Fireplace
333:article.
257:RFerreira
168:Star Trek
733:TAnthony
719:Becksguy
692:Lquilter
679:Lquilter
659:Benjiboi
632:Raystorm
547:Lquilter
523:WP:SYNTH
501:Otto4711
471:Otto4711
454:fancruft
446:WP:SYNTH
393:, I can
391:Trekkies
319:contribs
305:deletion
289:Otto4711
253:WP:SYNTH
225:Lquilter
212:this AfD
203:Chardish
158:Becksguy
137:Chardish
116:View log
800:WP:CITE
787:Bearian
759:Rewrite
613:Comment
527:WP:NPOV
511:subject
450:WP:NPOV
310:SatyrTN
301:cleanup
273:WP:NPOV
128:balance
89:protect
84:history
874:Esprix
779:WP:HEY
765:Cailil
655:WP:AfD
638:(¿Sí?)
617:Dev920
603:Jeffpw
590:Dev920
575:Colts!
529:, and
515:source
442:WP:NOR
341:scribe
303:, not
269:WP:NOR
265:Delete
251:major
249:Delete
237:Delete
93:delete
804:WP:EL
543:fewer
539:about
519:WP:OR
438:WP:NN
399:Kizor
395:downl
307:. --
216:Kizor
182:Kizor
173:Kizor
110:views
102:watch
98:links
54:desat
16:<
878:talk
850:Keep
829:talk
825:Rray
821:Keep
812:talk
795:Keep
777:per
775:Keep
757:but
755:Keep
745:Rayc
741:Keep
688:more
667:Keep
628:Keep
585:Keep
535:more
436:per
411:Keep
362:Keep
350:Keep
330:Keep
315:talk
285:Keep
277:Xihr
271:and
147:Note
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
50:Core
46:keep
806:.
675:lot
337:WjB
153:.
114:– (
880:)
831:)
814:)
785:.
578:)
572:Go
525:,
521:,
499:.
448:,
444:,
440:,
424:()
317:|
135:.
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
48:.
876:(
827:(
810:(
569:(
321:)
313:(
156:—
118:)
112:)
74:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.