![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2009 December 4. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
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) reply
Its important to understand that Wikipedia: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) reply
![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2009 December 4. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
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) reply
Its important to understand that Wikipedia: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) reply