Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 December 3
2009 December 5 >

4 December 2009

  • List of post-Ellen American television episodes with LGBT themes – Despite the inadequate explanation for the close by the closing admin there is a clear preponderance of opinion that, notwithstanding this, the outcome was reasonable and in accordance with administrative discretion. The manner of reaching the outcome (counting votes) was incorrect and would ordinarily lead to the close being overturned. That the closer got the right outcome by the wrong process doesn't mean that their approach is encouraged. So, outcome endorsed (article stays deleted) but the closing process is emphatically not endorsed. – Spartaz Humbug! 06:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of post-Ellen American television episodes with LGBT themes ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Under any reasonable reading of the discussion, at best this was no consensus. Going on raw numbers, the discussion was 11 for deletion and 8 for keep with one neutral. On its face this adds up to no consensus. Addressing the specific comments in favor of deletion, they include "TV shows with LGBT-related episodes had already been around for years" (irrelevant), "the vast majority of the program [sic] cited in the article have no notability in their own right" (which I assume means that the commenter believes that the individual episodes are not independently notable, which is irrelevant to a list), including LGBT themes in TV shows is no longer unusual (untrue and also irrelevant), "The name of this list is simply atrocious" (irrelevant), "ridiculously long" (irrelevant), and "utterly ridiculous" (irrelevant and probably bigoted). All of these comments have no basis in any policy or guideline related to WP content and should have been ignored. The closing admin should also have ignored in their entirety the "what's next, list of X episodes that have Y?" comments, which make up roughly a third of the comments against the list. Other deleters questioned the use of " The Puppy Episode" as the dividing line despite multiple sources explaining it. Several commenters (including the nominator) failed to grasp the scope of the list, complaining that it did not include programs like Queer as Folk and Will & Grace despite repeated explanations that they fell outside the scope of the list. The list was for series that do not regularly include LGBT content and series which regularly include such content are outside that scope. The only substantive comments are regarding WP:OR, which were refuted within the discussion and for which a solution was proposed and ignored. AFD was closed with the single word "delete" and closing admin's response to questioning the closure was "If you would like a copy of the article in your user space, please let me know." which does not in any adequate way explain why this article, which had a dozen footnotes and several book-length references, was deleted. This closing does not even begin to reflect the content of the discussion. Deleting this article punches a hole through WP's coverage of this subject with no justification. Any issues with the article can be fixed through normal editing process. Deletion is entirely uncalled for. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply

  • overturn to nc As the closer has made it clear on his talk page he won't be explaining this close, we are left with the question "is this a reasonable close?" As the keep !votes appear to me to be stronger than the delete !votes in terms of numbers and strength I'm stuck with overturning. And a fish to the closer for having no closing statement and refusing to provide one when asked. Hobit ( talk) 21:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • And your one-word comment and your refusal to back up your obvious majority-rule deletion without any basis in policy or guideline are contrary to the letter and the spirit of this encyclopedia. If you have some basis for your deletion it can't possibly be that difficult to cite even a scrap of WP policy or guideline to justify it. Your failure to do so points out with blinding clarity your inability to do so. Otto4711 ( talk) 03:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I'm just curious, you are asking for clarification about a !vote, but aren't willing to provide one for a close? Not sure if that's ironic or presumptuous. In any case, I did miscount, but still feel the keep arguments were much stronger than the delete arguments. Hobit ( talk) 20:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to no consensus. It appears that the keep votes may have had sounder reasoning than the delete votes did. I agree with Hobit's sentiment that this is an AfD where there should've been a closing statement. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 22:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse (as closing admin). It's 10 delete votes to 8 keep votes by my count. That's enough to justify deletion. Simply because some users have added unnecessarily lengthy (keep) comments doesn't mean the decision requires a lengthy close. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 23:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to no consensus. No offense to MZMcBride, but MZMcBride seems unfamiliar with sometimes taking into consideration the strength of arguments over numbers. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn. Too many of the delete arguments were clearly based on a misunderstanding (e.g. , that the list doesnt show the character was there because of Elen -- which is wholly irrelevant to the title or the defined scope) or that the shows themselves were not acceptable sources for their basic plot, or were objections to the existence of the list itself regardless of any reason except IDONTLIKEIT. Otto gives some others. All such votes were not policy based and should have been discarded. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse DGG's assertion that the article was deleted because people didn't like it is completely false; nobody asserted an IDONTLIKEIT type argument in the debate. OR concerns and concerns with the scope of the article were not sufficently refuted by policy-based arguments. Keep votes were in the minority and most were exceedingly weak. Them From Space 09:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I did not say that. I said that some of the !votes seemed to be based on that reason, & others were based on equally wrong reasons. DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Close was certainly within administrative discretion. Many of the delete votes reflected concerns over NPOV, NOR, and RS issues, where standards cannot be relaxed for individual articles by local consensus (not that one existed here). The central delete arguments, never addressed by more than handwaving, are that 1) the list is not encylopedic, because it is constructed to reflect/support an opinion about the significance of the Ellen episode; 2) the inclusion criteria for the list are inherently subjective, and generally undefined; and 3) the contents of the list are original research - rather than reflecting claims made in secondary source, they reflect the opinions of Wikipedia editors based on primary sources regarding the "themes" of television shows and the importance of those themes. As for the nominator's concern about "punching a hole" in Wikipedia's coverage of the subject (which isn't relevant to deletion over the cited policy issues), the answer is simple: Write an actual article on the subject, based on reliable secondary sources, presenting the full range of opinions on the matter, and placing the discussion in an appropriate context. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 15:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • 1) The significance of the Ellen episode is supported by multiple independent reliable secondary sources and claims to the contrary are simply untrue. 2) Any questions about the scope and/or inclusion criteria can be answered through normal editing. 3) WP:PSTS clearly allows editors to watch primary sources and report on their contents despite your insistence to the contrary. All of these were addressed repeatedly despite your claims otherwise. You didn't care for the answers but that's hardly the same as not being answered at all. If you believe that there is some segment of "the full range of opinions on the matter" that was not being presented, the answer is simple: edit the article to reflect this supposed range of opinions. "The article does not in my opinion reflect the range of available opinion therefore delete it" is completely outside of editing policy and guidelines. Otto4711 ( talk) 18:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Weak overturn: this is really a "AFD part 2" argument, in that I agree with the concept, but not the dividing line. The Puppy Episode seems to be a rather arbitrary line... Sceptre ( talk) 15:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz - Just because someone doesn't explicitly cite a policy in their reasoning doesn't mean their argument is completely irrelevant or that its not based in policy. I agree that an article (not a list) could be written about this topic, but a list of every single episode of a TV show after April 30, 1997 with an LGBT "theme" is not it. Mr. Z-man 18:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comparing this list to such trivialities as "List of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" and "list of shades of colors of apple sauce" is stupid and insulting, and it ignores the many, many sources which discuss the subject of the list. It amounts to a homophobic "oh, how gay people are shown on TV is unimportant" argument which ignores reality.
  • The examples there are simply examples of obvious cases. Though I completely fail to see how you get from "stupid examples" to "homophobic." Since you're only going to selectively read policies apparently, the relevant part of WP:SAL is "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value." While the introduction to the list presents useful, well-sourced information, the list itself is so broad, even in its incredibly incomplete state, it adds little to the article (some of the mentions are so trivial, they arguably detract from its quality). Mr. Z-man 07:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Which amounts to an editing issue. "This example is trivial" and "that example detracts from the list" are matters which can be addressed through usual editing and discussion on the talk page. Nothing at SAL places this list beyond the scope of WP. Leaving aside your unsupportable accusations about what I have and have not read, this list is on no way comparable to the "list of brand names" contemplated by the section of SAL you reference. "The list is incomplete" is an argument in favor of including the supposed missing items, not deleting the entire list. Deleting a list because not every includable item is on it yet is unimaginably stupid. Many lists are currently incomplete. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists the answer to incomplete lists is to try to complete them, not throw up our hands with the complaint that they are supposedly incompletable. "Episodes of non-LGBT related series which deal with LGBT issues" is neither too general nor too broad in scope. Any questions regarding the scope of the list can be resolved through normal editing and do not in any way require the removal of this information. Otto4711 ( talk) 07:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. The deletion of this article does not "punch a hole" in Wikipedia's coverage but rather sets The Puppy Episode not just as a turning point (as the article's supporters portrayed it), but also as a stopping point for needing coverage of the topic -- that is, after Ellen, LGBT themes on American television were no longer so unusual that every single one of them had to be reported in this encyclopedia. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The idea that LGBT content in non-LGBT series magically became unimportant after The Puppy Episode is ludicrous on its face. Applying this bizarre notion would mean that any list which includes entries that occurred after a watershed moment would have to be deleted. Clearly there are sources which continue to discuss the presentation of LGBT-related themes and material post-Ellen so the claim that it suddenly doesn't matter any more is just plain stupid. Otto4711 ( talk) 20:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Well of course the list only contained entries after the Puppy Episode, because that was the intended scope of the list. There is absolutely nothing wrong with breaking down subject matter by some temporal guideline. The failure of those who maintain the lists of first Af-Am baseball players is irrelevant to this list. This list served to assist those interested in LGBT portrayals on TV to locate those specific episodes which included such portrayals. The idea that such portrayals somehow stopped to matter following Ellen's coming out is unsupported by any source and ridiculous on its face. The idea that LGBT-themed episodes, which make up a miniscule fraction of a percentage of the TV episodes produced, have somehow become "not unusual" is unsupported by, well, REALITY, and is utterly bizarre. Presentation of LGBT content on TV remains unusual because it is, by even the most shallow of examination of TV content, NOT USUAL. Otto4711 ( talk) 02:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • That those who have to date decided to limit the list as they have is in no way an argument against this list. In fact is in an argument in favor of this list. They set their parameters as they did and there is no rush to delete it based on those parameters. Yet this list also set parameters and has suffered from an ignorant clamor that by daring to set parameters the entire list is somehow wrong. I wish I could say that the resistance to LGBT content could be seen as equivalent to resistance to racial content but unfortunately it has been made abundantly clear that when it comes to homos the same standards of inclusion do not apply. Way to be bigoted, Wikipedia. Otto4711 ( talk) 05:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse I don't see the close as unreasonable. Eusebeus ( talk) 22:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Despite some comments here, the keeps weren't so spell bindingly enlightening that they answered the concerns of those wanting deletion. Perhaps a closing summary would have been appropriate, but this isn't AfD Round 2 and there are comments here that are simply arguing the importance of the list; not the merits of the close. This was well within administrative discretion and to say otherwise is facetious. \ Backslash Forwardslash / ( talk) 23:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The point remains (responding again to the AFD nominator) that the issues raised by the deleters were not unanswered by the keepers nor were they so far beyond the scope of normal editing as to require deletion. There is a world of difference between "there may be some OR in the article as it exists" and "there is no basis for this article to exist that does not involve OR". Given the quality of comments on the deletion side of the scale it should have been a no-brainer where on the scale this article fell. Unfortunately it was closed by an admin who truly failed to use his brain. His lack of comment at the AFD and his lack of comment on his talk page both indicate no intellectual effort behind his decision. His comments here ("the numbers favor deletion by my count" and "It's 10 delete votes to 8 keep votes by my count. That's enough to justify deletion") strongly indicate that he put no thought whatsoever into the close beyond totting up the numbers for and against. This is a fundamental failure to fulfill his responsibilities as an administrator. Otto4711 ( talk) 01:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to no consensus. This is a notable subject area and this issues boiled down to regular editing concerns which where deletion was hardly needed and that was pointed out clearly in the discussion but apparently wasn't heard. There was some valid concerns that could help improve the list but certainly demanding that something be deleted instead of constructively working for a better article is a step in the wrong direction. The logical extension of course is that we delete everything until it's to a GA level and even then every sentence and statement has to be "cite needed" bombed. -- Banjeboi 01:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The concerns raised by those advotaing deletion were not something that could be solved by normal editing, short of completely rewriting the article. The main concern was the entire basis of the list is original research and improper synthesis. Basically there are reliable sources that The Puppy Episode was hugely influential in LGBT issues on television. There are sources (at least the episode itself) that the E.R. episode "A Hopeless Wound" portrayed a gay couple in it. However, there are no sources saying that that particular E.R. episode having a LGBT plot element is due to The Puppy Episode. Either the list is suggesting that every episode with LGBT-related plot elements is due to The Puppy Episode, in which case its purely WP:SYN, or its just a list of episodes with LGBT-related plot elements after some arbitrary date, in which case its WP:INDISCRIMINATE information. Mr. Z-man 04:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Which might make some difference if only the list were asserting that the existence of the Ellen episode was the end-all and be-all of the change in LGBT representation. Except, of course IT DIDN'T. It noted that the episode was recognized as a watershed moment and presented a list of episodes that happened to fall after that moment. There is no assertion that every single post-Puppy Episode episode was directly influenced by TPE outside the assumptions of the deleters. Otto4711 ( talk) 08:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • There is no explicit assertion, but the fact that such a list would be compiled at all (otherwise its just a list of TV episodes that meet some incredibly arbitrary criteria regarding content and air date) with an introduction about how TPE was such an important moment strongly implies it. Mr. Z-man 18:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • There needed to be a dividing line and TPE is the logical dividing point. That other editors make assumptions is not the fault of the list, or if it is it can be corrected through normal editing to clarify. it. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - We entrust administrators to use their judgment when closing deletion debates, and barring a reason to believe the admin made a blatant error, we should typically respect that. – Juliancolton |  Talk 05:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The closing admin made an obvious error in judgement by basing his close on nothing other than pure vote count. The admin has repeatedly affirmed that his decision was based on nothing but vote count and such a basis is purely without anchor in any policy or guideline. The closing admin's rationale was "10 is more than 8" and as such should be stricken down as the simplistic vote-counting that it is. Otto4711 ( talk) 05:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • But looking through the discussion, I find no compelling reason to argue that deletion was not backed by consensus. I therefore endorse their closure. It's worth noting that of the eight keep votes, two were either "weak" or "very weak". – Juliancolton |  Talk 05:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Failing to back up an opinion on any basis of guideline or policy is a clear-cut reason for discounting that opinion. The majority of those clamoring for deletion were based on nothing that had any basis in any such guideline or policy. "This is weird" and "I have personal problems with it" don't come anywhere close to the threshold required for deletion and any honest non-prejudiced assessment of the delete comment would reveal that they are based on nothing.
  • Endorse. I cannot say that the close was clearly erroneous, on the assumption that the closer did not base their decision solely on a votecount, which seems appropriate despite the absence of a closing summary. Tim Song ( talk) 05:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The closer clearly and obviously based his closure solely on a vote count. "It's 10 delete votes to 8 keep votes by my count. That's enough to justify deletion." There is no possible explanation of this statement other than a vote count. 10 is bigger than 8, so delete. VOTE COUNT. Otto4711 ( talk) 05:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • On what basis do you "seriously" doubt it? On the basis of the one-word closing statement? On the basis of the closer's failure to offer any other reason on his talk page? Or on the basis of his flat-out statements in this discussion that he closed the debate on the basis of the 10-8 count in the AFD? How much clearer can "It's 10 delete votes to 8 keep votes by my count. That's enough to justify deletion." possibly be to prove that this closure was based on counting and nothing else? Does a closing admin really have to say "I counted the votes and more said delete than keep" to make it clear? "It's 10 delete votes to 8 keep votes by my count. That's enough to justify deletion." Vote counting, pure and simple. Ten is more than eight so delete. Vote counting. Any honest person would come to the same conclusion. Otto4711 ( talk) 05:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Did you just accuse me of dishonesty? I doubt it because the closer is a very experienced administrator extremely familiar with deletion-related issues. Indeed, they have deleted more pages than any other admin. It seems appropriate to assume that, the terse and admittedly suboptimal explanation notwithstanding, they did not simply count !votes but also considered the strength of the argument. Tim Song ( talk) 17:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • That's not a fair reading of the closer's comment. He's addressing the DRV issue -- which is, boiled down, whether the close was an abuse of admin discretion -- and saying that, as a general rule, closing an AFD in accordance with the majority of !votes is not an abuse of admin discretion. And, absent socking issues or compelling claims of policy violations (as opposed to disputed interpretations), I think that's a reasonable enough statement, although broader than I would consistently agree with. I do think the closer correctly anticipates that a more detailed statement at this point would result in more nonconstructive cud-chewing over the issues in the AFD itself than in the issues that DRV should be limited to. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 18:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Calling a statement of counted votes vote-counting is a perfectly fair and reasonable reading of the statement. It even reads like a math equation: 10d ÷ 8k = Delete. Calling the statement "Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but the numbers favor deletion by my count." strongly indicates that the nominator's reason for closing the AFD as delete was based on the numbers. It is hand-waving to take these simple statements and twist them to believe that they mean that something other than vote-counting took place. Some might even call it original research. Then we have the rest of the closing admin's self-endorsement here: "Simply because some users have added unnecessarily lengthy (keep) comments doesn't mean the decision requires a lengthy close." Given that the closing admin believes that the keep !voters' comments were "unnecessarily lengthy" I have to question how much attention he actually paid to those comments. The stated purpose of DRV is to determine "if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly". Overturning an AFD does not require, nor does it imply, that an admin abused his discretion. It simply means that the admin made a mistake. I did not state, nor did I imply, that the close of the AFD was an abuse of discretion. I said that based on the lack of information provided in closing the AFD and the initial refusal of the admin to explain his decision, the admin's interpretation of the AFD was in error and that when the only information the admin eventually provides indicates a reliance on pure numbers, this is a further indication of error. Otto4711 ( talk) 18:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Regardless of whether the closer counted votes or evaluated the arguments, I believe that the outcome was correct - the delete arguments were significantly stronger. Obviously if the closer closed on the basis of vote counts then this is not a good thing, but to overturn a decision because the right outcome happened for the wrong reason is pointless wikilawyering. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The delete arguments could have been addressed through editing, which you acknowledge in your statement below. This weakens the arguments for deletion considerably. Deleting a page that can be fixed through normal editing is always an error, regardless of how the closing admin arrived at that conclusion. Excusing a close with which you agree just because you agree with it despite any errors that the closing admin may have made is exactly the same as overturning it just because you disagree with it, which is expressly disallowed ("This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome"). Whether one agrees or disagrees with the outcome is irrelevant and strongly at cross-purposes to the process. Wiki-lawyering? This is Wiki-jury nullification. Dismissing the concern over the issues raised as "pointless" is insulting. Otto4711 ( talk) 01:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • No, in my comment below I said that individually, some of the problems could be fixed by editing if they were the only problem with the page, but given that they do not occur individually and that there are also problems that cannot be solved by editing then deletion is the only way forward. You will also note that I am endorsing the outcome but not necessarily the methodology (the right thing happening, but possibly for the wrong reason) because if I were closing the original debate based on evaluating the strengths of the arguments then I too would have closed it as a delete. Undeleteing something that might have been deleted for the wrong reasons just to redelete it for the right reasons is pointless. This is very different to overturning a decision that resulted from a correct determination of consensus just because you disagree with that consensus (the right thing happened for the right reasons). Thryduulf ( talk) 02:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The supposed inherent indiscrimination of the list is based on the false premise that it is commonplace for series that don't routinely feature LGBT content to do so. There were approximately 200 entries on this list, covering almost thirteen years of American television. Do you have any idea how many tens if not hundreds of thousands of television episodes have been produced in that time frame? A couple of hundred out of tens of thousands is hardly commonplace by any remotely plausible definition. GLAAD does an annual report on LGBT representation and for the 2009-10 season, out of 600 series regular and recurring prime time characters on the broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, The CW, Fox and NBC), 18, or 3%, are LGB; there are no trans characters on network TV. Of the series in which these characters appear, two have already been cancelled. On mainstream cable series (GLAAD counted 11 cable networks) there are only 25 regular LGBT characters. The number of LGBT characters is declining. Every other series being broadcast does not include LGBT characters or story lines on any regular basis, or indeed in most cases ever. The claim that LGBT representation on TV is unremarkable or routine or commonplace is an opinion, unsupported by actual facts. That 1997 marked the end of any meaningful reason to track this information is an idea that has no basis in reality. The supposed arbitrariness is addressed by asking two simple questions: Does the series routinely feature LGBT characters or story lines? If no, does a particular episode include an LGBT story line? And yes, I understand that you support the result regardless of the fatally flawed method used to obtain it. "It got done the wrong way but I got the result I wanted" is as shoddy thinking as "It got done the right way but I didn't get the result I wanted". Otto4711 ( talk) 19:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. I agree that the closer's statement above is annoying. But it doesn't make sense to overturn solely on that basis. This is actually a fundamental principle that has been affirmed at AfD many times: though it is courteous for an admin to explain closure of a close debate, it has never been required by policy. If the close was reasonable, then it was reasonable, whatever the closer says or doesn't say about it. Chick Bowen 05:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The close, based on the content of the discussion, was NOT reasonable. That's kind of the frigging point. Closing a complex discussion with a single word and refusing to back that close up beyond saying that more people said NO than YES is an utter failure on the part of the closing admin to do his actual job. "Duh, 10 is more than 8" is the illogic of someone who has no understanding or ability to implement actual AFD policy. There was nothing presented at AFD to indicate that any supposed issues with the article could not be addressed through the normal editing process but the closing admin blundered in with "10 more big than 8" and deleted with obviously no thought given to the arguments themselves. When an admin refuses to offer any rationale other than "more said X than Y" his decisions should be highly scrutinized and his basic understanding of the process should be questioned. Otto4711 ( talk) 05:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse outcome. While such a terse closing statement for such a verbosely contested XfD discussion is not ideal, and the apparent unwillingness to expand on it when requested is very concerning, the determination of the outcome was correct. The arguments for deletion that were not adequately refuted by those in favour of keep included that the inclusion criteria were arbitrary and arbitrarily applied; while the reason for choosing the Puppy Episode as the cutoff was properly explained and sourced, the actual items in the list were not sourced - no secondary sources were provided to show that the included themes exist in the listed items or that they were significant (and for the majority of list entries are not available) (violating WP:OR and WP:V; that the list was arbitrary as there was no distinction made between themes that were significant and those that were not; and that since the watershed moment the presence of such themes is now not unusual and as such listing all of them would violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE (and that the only way to prevent this would be to apply arbitrary inclusion criteria). There also seems to be consensus that an article about the watershed episode and that since then such themes are not unusual is both possible and desirable, but that a list of themes is not. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • comment is there any way of persuading closers to give proper reasons for contested AfD s in the future? If anyone wants to reopen the discussion on making that a requirement, there's the talk page. DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn as no consensus While there are genuine issues with the article, the balance between keep and delete votes justifies a close of no consensus, rather than delete. Many individuals voting to delete latched on to the title, despite a clear and well-sourced explanation for the non-arbitrary nature of the cutoff point. Alansohn ( talk) 01:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The problem isn't that the cutoff point is arbitrary, because as you point out it isn't - most delete and endorse !voters agree that the introduction to the list explained that well and supported it with references. The problem is that since that watershed moment, it has become unremarkable for episodes of American TV programmes to include LGBT themes. This led to the necessity of the arbitrary inclusion criteria in a vain attempt to stop it becoming a truly indiscriminate list. That the criteria were arbitrarily adhered to would not be reason, on its own, to delete the list merely to either seriously thin the list or (probably easier) just start again. That the entries on the list were not supported by reliable secondary sources, taken in isolation, is another argument to starting again. However given that the list is inherently arbitrary and/or indiscriminate doing either of these would not result in a useful, pointful list. The closest I can come to defining what the list was acutally functioning as is "List of post-Ellen American television episodes with no regular LGBT characters, story arcs or plot devices and which do not normally focus on LGBT issues, that include significant or incidental themes that original research by one or more Wikipedia editors suggests are related to LGBT issues." which shows just how arbitrary the list was. Thryduulf ( talk) 02:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I would strongly disagree with the unremarkability of American TV series to include LGBT themes, given the tendency of the media and other reliable sources, and interest groups on both sides to, well, remark upon them. Regardless, since the adoption of the internal combustion engine it is no longer remarkable for car manufacturers to introduce new models of existing vehicles, yet we maintain lists of automobile makes and models. Since you acknowledge that the list could have been fixed (despite your belief that deleting it was "easier", which is true of most problematic articles), deletion was not appropriate. Your description of the list is ridiculously verbose and inaccurate, since it does not require OR to determine the content of an individual episode per WP:PSTS, but since reliable secondary sources could have been added their absence is not a basis for deletion. "This is not sourced to a secondary source" is in no way the same as "this cannot be sourced to a secondary source". A scope for the list was suggested in the AFD but the discussion was closed before any additional comment was made on it. If only there were a talk page on which such issues as the scope of the list could be discussed... Otto4711 ( talk) 18:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn as per the nom. I particularly with his claims about the fundamental weakness of most of the delete arguments. If the closer had provided more of a rationale for his decision I might be inclined to accept it, but since so many of the delete votes smacked and WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST (not to mention "the title is bad", something that should have been discussed on the talk page), I think it should have been a "No consensus" decision, especially since the total votes were so close even before you took into account some of the weak deletion arguments compared to the keep arguments... — Hunter Kahn ( c) 08:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. The deletes had the strength in both numbers and arguments. Quantpole ( talk) 11:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse The arguments for deletion were stronger than the keep arguments. This is a perfectly valid outcome and within the admin's discretion. AniMate 01:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_December_4&oldid=1141925657"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 December 3
2009 December 5 >

4 December 2009

  • List of post-Ellen American television episodes with LGBT themes – Despite the inadequate explanation for the close by the closing admin there is a clear preponderance of opinion that, notwithstanding this, the outcome was reasonable and in accordance with administrative discretion. The manner of reaching the outcome (counting votes) was incorrect and would ordinarily lead to the close being overturned. That the closer got the right outcome by the wrong process doesn't mean that their approach is encouraged. So, outcome endorsed (article stays deleted) but the closing process is emphatically not endorsed. – Spartaz Humbug! 06:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of post-Ellen American television episodes with LGBT themes ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Under any reasonable reading of the discussion, at best this was no consensus. Going on raw numbers, the discussion was 11 for deletion and 8 for keep with one neutral. On its face this adds up to no consensus. Addressing the specific comments in favor of deletion, they include "TV shows with LGBT-related episodes had already been around for years" (irrelevant), "the vast majority of the program [sic] cited in the article have no notability in their own right" (which I assume means that the commenter believes that the individual episodes are not independently notable, which is irrelevant to a list), including LGBT themes in TV shows is no longer unusual (untrue and also irrelevant), "The name of this list is simply atrocious" (irrelevant), "ridiculously long" (irrelevant), and "utterly ridiculous" (irrelevant and probably bigoted). All of these comments have no basis in any policy or guideline related to WP content and should have been ignored. The closing admin should also have ignored in their entirety the "what's next, list of X episodes that have Y?" comments, which make up roughly a third of the comments against the list. Other deleters questioned the use of " The Puppy Episode" as the dividing line despite multiple sources explaining it. Several commenters (including the nominator) failed to grasp the scope of the list, complaining that it did not include programs like Queer as Folk and Will & Grace despite repeated explanations that they fell outside the scope of the list. The list was for series that do not regularly include LGBT content and series which regularly include such content are outside that scope. The only substantive comments are regarding WP:OR, which were refuted within the discussion and for which a solution was proposed and ignored. AFD was closed with the single word "delete" and closing admin's response to questioning the closure was "If you would like a copy of the article in your user space, please let me know." which does not in any adequate way explain why this article, which had a dozen footnotes and several book-length references, was deleted. This closing does not even begin to reflect the content of the discussion. Deleting this article punches a hole through WP's coverage of this subject with no justification. Any issues with the article can be fixed through normal editing process. Deletion is entirely uncalled for. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply

  • overturn to nc As the closer has made it clear on his talk page he won't be explaining this close, we are left with the question "is this a reasonable close?" As the keep !votes appear to me to be stronger than the delete !votes in terms of numbers and strength I'm stuck with overturning. And a fish to the closer for having no closing statement and refusing to provide one when asked. Hobit ( talk) 21:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • And your one-word comment and your refusal to back up your obvious majority-rule deletion without any basis in policy or guideline are contrary to the letter and the spirit of this encyclopedia. If you have some basis for your deletion it can't possibly be that difficult to cite even a scrap of WP policy or guideline to justify it. Your failure to do so points out with blinding clarity your inability to do so. Otto4711 ( talk) 03:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I'm just curious, you are asking for clarification about a !vote, but aren't willing to provide one for a close? Not sure if that's ironic or presumptuous. In any case, I did miscount, but still feel the keep arguments were much stronger than the delete arguments. Hobit ( talk) 20:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to no consensus. It appears that the keep votes may have had sounder reasoning than the delete votes did. I agree with Hobit's sentiment that this is an AfD where there should've been a closing statement. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 22:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse (as closing admin). It's 10 delete votes to 8 keep votes by my count. That's enough to justify deletion. Simply because some users have added unnecessarily lengthy (keep) comments doesn't mean the decision requires a lengthy close. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 23:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to no consensus. No offense to MZMcBride, but MZMcBride seems unfamiliar with sometimes taking into consideration the strength of arguments over numbers. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn. Too many of the delete arguments were clearly based on a misunderstanding (e.g. , that the list doesnt show the character was there because of Elen -- which is wholly irrelevant to the title or the defined scope) or that the shows themselves were not acceptable sources for their basic plot, or were objections to the existence of the list itself regardless of any reason except IDONTLIKEIT. Otto gives some others. All such votes were not policy based and should have been discarded. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse DGG's assertion that the article was deleted because people didn't like it is completely false; nobody asserted an IDONTLIKEIT type argument in the debate. OR concerns and concerns with the scope of the article were not sufficently refuted by policy-based arguments. Keep votes were in the minority and most were exceedingly weak. Them From Space 09:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I did not say that. I said that some of the !votes seemed to be based on that reason, & others were based on equally wrong reasons. DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Close was certainly within administrative discretion. Many of the delete votes reflected concerns over NPOV, NOR, and RS issues, where standards cannot be relaxed for individual articles by local consensus (not that one existed here). The central delete arguments, never addressed by more than handwaving, are that 1) the list is not encylopedic, because it is constructed to reflect/support an opinion about the significance of the Ellen episode; 2) the inclusion criteria for the list are inherently subjective, and generally undefined; and 3) the contents of the list are original research - rather than reflecting claims made in secondary source, they reflect the opinions of Wikipedia editors based on primary sources regarding the "themes" of television shows and the importance of those themes. As for the nominator's concern about "punching a hole" in Wikipedia's coverage of the subject (which isn't relevant to deletion over the cited policy issues), the answer is simple: Write an actual article on the subject, based on reliable secondary sources, presenting the full range of opinions on the matter, and placing the discussion in an appropriate context. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 15:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • 1) The significance of the Ellen episode is supported by multiple independent reliable secondary sources and claims to the contrary are simply untrue. 2) Any questions about the scope and/or inclusion criteria can be answered through normal editing. 3) WP:PSTS clearly allows editors to watch primary sources and report on their contents despite your insistence to the contrary. All of these were addressed repeatedly despite your claims otherwise. You didn't care for the answers but that's hardly the same as not being answered at all. If you believe that there is some segment of "the full range of opinions on the matter" that was not being presented, the answer is simple: edit the article to reflect this supposed range of opinions. "The article does not in my opinion reflect the range of available opinion therefore delete it" is completely outside of editing policy and guidelines. Otto4711 ( talk) 18:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Weak overturn: this is really a "AFD part 2" argument, in that I agree with the concept, but not the dividing line. The Puppy Episode seems to be a rather arbitrary line... Sceptre ( talk) 15:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz - Just because someone doesn't explicitly cite a policy in their reasoning doesn't mean their argument is completely irrelevant or that its not based in policy. I agree that an article (not a list) could be written about this topic, but a list of every single episode of a TV show after April 30, 1997 with an LGBT "theme" is not it. Mr. Z-man 18:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comparing this list to such trivialities as "List of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" and "list of shades of colors of apple sauce" is stupid and insulting, and it ignores the many, many sources which discuss the subject of the list. It amounts to a homophobic "oh, how gay people are shown on TV is unimportant" argument which ignores reality.
  • The examples there are simply examples of obvious cases. Though I completely fail to see how you get from "stupid examples" to "homophobic." Since you're only going to selectively read policies apparently, the relevant part of WP:SAL is "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value." While the introduction to the list presents useful, well-sourced information, the list itself is so broad, even in its incredibly incomplete state, it adds little to the article (some of the mentions are so trivial, they arguably detract from its quality). Mr. Z-man 07:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Which amounts to an editing issue. "This example is trivial" and "that example detracts from the list" are matters which can be addressed through usual editing and discussion on the talk page. Nothing at SAL places this list beyond the scope of WP. Leaving aside your unsupportable accusations about what I have and have not read, this list is on no way comparable to the "list of brand names" contemplated by the section of SAL you reference. "The list is incomplete" is an argument in favor of including the supposed missing items, not deleting the entire list. Deleting a list because not every includable item is on it yet is unimaginably stupid. Many lists are currently incomplete. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists the answer to incomplete lists is to try to complete them, not throw up our hands with the complaint that they are supposedly incompletable. "Episodes of non-LGBT related series which deal with LGBT issues" is neither too general nor too broad in scope. Any questions regarding the scope of the list can be resolved through normal editing and do not in any way require the removal of this information. Otto4711 ( talk) 07:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. The deletion of this article does not "punch a hole" in Wikipedia's coverage but rather sets The Puppy Episode not just as a turning point (as the article's supporters portrayed it), but also as a stopping point for needing coverage of the topic -- that is, after Ellen, LGBT themes on American television were no longer so unusual that every single one of them had to be reported in this encyclopedia. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The idea that LGBT content in non-LGBT series magically became unimportant after The Puppy Episode is ludicrous on its face. Applying this bizarre notion would mean that any list which includes entries that occurred after a watershed moment would have to be deleted. Clearly there are sources which continue to discuss the presentation of LGBT-related themes and material post-Ellen so the claim that it suddenly doesn't matter any more is just plain stupid. Otto4711 ( talk) 20:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Well of course the list only contained entries after the Puppy Episode, because that was the intended scope of the list. There is absolutely nothing wrong with breaking down subject matter by some temporal guideline. The failure of those who maintain the lists of first Af-Am baseball players is irrelevant to this list. This list served to assist those interested in LGBT portrayals on TV to locate those specific episodes which included such portrayals. The idea that such portrayals somehow stopped to matter following Ellen's coming out is unsupported by any source and ridiculous on its face. The idea that LGBT-themed episodes, which make up a miniscule fraction of a percentage of the TV episodes produced, have somehow become "not unusual" is unsupported by, well, REALITY, and is utterly bizarre. Presentation of LGBT content on TV remains unusual because it is, by even the most shallow of examination of TV content, NOT USUAL. Otto4711 ( talk) 02:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • That those who have to date decided to limit the list as they have is in no way an argument against this list. In fact is in an argument in favor of this list. They set their parameters as they did and there is no rush to delete it based on those parameters. Yet this list also set parameters and has suffered from an ignorant clamor that by daring to set parameters the entire list is somehow wrong. I wish I could say that the resistance to LGBT content could be seen as equivalent to resistance to racial content but unfortunately it has been made abundantly clear that when it comes to homos the same standards of inclusion do not apply. Way to be bigoted, Wikipedia. Otto4711 ( talk) 05:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse I don't see the close as unreasonable. Eusebeus ( talk) 22:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Despite some comments here, the keeps weren't so spell bindingly enlightening that they answered the concerns of those wanting deletion. Perhaps a closing summary would have been appropriate, but this isn't AfD Round 2 and there are comments here that are simply arguing the importance of the list; not the merits of the close. This was well within administrative discretion and to say otherwise is facetious. \ Backslash Forwardslash / ( talk) 23:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The point remains (responding again to the AFD nominator) that the issues raised by the deleters were not unanswered by the keepers nor were they so far beyond the scope of normal editing as to require deletion. There is a world of difference between "there may be some OR in the article as it exists" and "there is no basis for this article to exist that does not involve OR". Given the quality of comments on the deletion side of the scale it should have been a no-brainer where on the scale this article fell. Unfortunately it was closed by an admin who truly failed to use his brain. His lack of comment at the AFD and his lack of comment on his talk page both indicate no intellectual effort behind his decision. His comments here ("the numbers favor deletion by my count" and "It's 10 delete votes to 8 keep votes by my count. That's enough to justify deletion") strongly indicate that he put no thought whatsoever into the close beyond totting up the numbers for and against. This is a fundamental failure to fulfill his responsibilities as an administrator. Otto4711 ( talk) 01:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to no consensus. This is a notable subject area and this issues boiled down to regular editing concerns which where deletion was hardly needed and that was pointed out clearly in the discussion but apparently wasn't heard. There was some valid concerns that could help improve the list but certainly demanding that something be deleted instead of constructively working for a better article is a step in the wrong direction. The logical extension of course is that we delete everything until it's to a GA level and even then every sentence and statement has to be "cite needed" bombed. -- Banjeboi 01:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The concerns raised by those advotaing deletion were not something that could be solved by normal editing, short of completely rewriting the article. The main concern was the entire basis of the list is original research and improper synthesis. Basically there are reliable sources that The Puppy Episode was hugely influential in LGBT issues on television. There are sources (at least the episode itself) that the E.R. episode "A Hopeless Wound" portrayed a gay couple in it. However, there are no sources saying that that particular E.R. episode having a LGBT plot element is due to The Puppy Episode. Either the list is suggesting that every episode with LGBT-related plot elements is due to The Puppy Episode, in which case its purely WP:SYN, or its just a list of episodes with LGBT-related plot elements after some arbitrary date, in which case its WP:INDISCRIMINATE information. Mr. Z-man 04:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Which might make some difference if only the list were asserting that the existence of the Ellen episode was the end-all and be-all of the change in LGBT representation. Except, of course IT DIDN'T. It noted that the episode was recognized as a watershed moment and presented a list of episodes that happened to fall after that moment. There is no assertion that every single post-Puppy Episode episode was directly influenced by TPE outside the assumptions of the deleters. Otto4711 ( talk) 08:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • There is no explicit assertion, but the fact that such a list would be compiled at all (otherwise its just a list of TV episodes that meet some incredibly arbitrary criteria regarding content and air date) with an introduction about how TPE was such an important moment strongly implies it. Mr. Z-man 18:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • There needed to be a dividing line and TPE is the logical dividing point. That other editors make assumptions is not the fault of the list, or if it is it can be corrected through normal editing to clarify. it. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - We entrust administrators to use their judgment when closing deletion debates, and barring a reason to believe the admin made a blatant error, we should typically respect that. – Juliancolton |  Talk 05:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The closing admin made an obvious error in judgement by basing his close on nothing other than pure vote count. The admin has repeatedly affirmed that his decision was based on nothing but vote count and such a basis is purely without anchor in any policy or guideline. The closing admin's rationale was "10 is more than 8" and as such should be stricken down as the simplistic vote-counting that it is. Otto4711 ( talk) 05:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • But looking through the discussion, I find no compelling reason to argue that deletion was not backed by consensus. I therefore endorse their closure. It's worth noting that of the eight keep votes, two were either "weak" or "very weak". – Juliancolton |  Talk 05:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Failing to back up an opinion on any basis of guideline or policy is a clear-cut reason for discounting that opinion. The majority of those clamoring for deletion were based on nothing that had any basis in any such guideline or policy. "This is weird" and "I have personal problems with it" don't come anywhere close to the threshold required for deletion and any honest non-prejudiced assessment of the delete comment would reveal that they are based on nothing.
  • Endorse. I cannot say that the close was clearly erroneous, on the assumption that the closer did not base their decision solely on a votecount, which seems appropriate despite the absence of a closing summary. Tim Song ( talk) 05:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The closer clearly and obviously based his closure solely on a vote count. "It's 10 delete votes to 8 keep votes by my count. That's enough to justify deletion." There is no possible explanation of this statement other than a vote count. 10 is bigger than 8, so delete. VOTE COUNT. Otto4711 ( talk) 05:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • On what basis do you "seriously" doubt it? On the basis of the one-word closing statement? On the basis of the closer's failure to offer any other reason on his talk page? Or on the basis of his flat-out statements in this discussion that he closed the debate on the basis of the 10-8 count in the AFD? How much clearer can "It's 10 delete votes to 8 keep votes by my count. That's enough to justify deletion." possibly be to prove that this closure was based on counting and nothing else? Does a closing admin really have to say "I counted the votes and more said delete than keep" to make it clear? "It's 10 delete votes to 8 keep votes by my count. That's enough to justify deletion." Vote counting, pure and simple. Ten is more than eight so delete. Vote counting. Any honest person would come to the same conclusion. Otto4711 ( talk) 05:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Did you just accuse me of dishonesty? I doubt it because the closer is a very experienced administrator extremely familiar with deletion-related issues. Indeed, they have deleted more pages than any other admin. It seems appropriate to assume that, the terse and admittedly suboptimal explanation notwithstanding, they did not simply count !votes but also considered the strength of the argument. Tim Song ( talk) 17:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • That's not a fair reading of the closer's comment. He's addressing the DRV issue -- which is, boiled down, whether the close was an abuse of admin discretion -- and saying that, as a general rule, closing an AFD in accordance with the majority of !votes is not an abuse of admin discretion. And, absent socking issues or compelling claims of policy violations (as opposed to disputed interpretations), I think that's a reasonable enough statement, although broader than I would consistently agree with. I do think the closer correctly anticipates that a more detailed statement at this point would result in more nonconstructive cud-chewing over the issues in the AFD itself than in the issues that DRV should be limited to. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 18:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Calling a statement of counted votes vote-counting is a perfectly fair and reasonable reading of the statement. It even reads like a math equation: 10d ÷ 8k = Delete. Calling the statement "Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but the numbers favor deletion by my count." strongly indicates that the nominator's reason for closing the AFD as delete was based on the numbers. It is hand-waving to take these simple statements and twist them to believe that they mean that something other than vote-counting took place. Some might even call it original research. Then we have the rest of the closing admin's self-endorsement here: "Simply because some users have added unnecessarily lengthy (keep) comments doesn't mean the decision requires a lengthy close." Given that the closing admin believes that the keep !voters' comments were "unnecessarily lengthy" I have to question how much attention he actually paid to those comments. The stated purpose of DRV is to determine "if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly". Overturning an AFD does not require, nor does it imply, that an admin abused his discretion. It simply means that the admin made a mistake. I did not state, nor did I imply, that the close of the AFD was an abuse of discretion. I said that based on the lack of information provided in closing the AFD and the initial refusal of the admin to explain his decision, the admin's interpretation of the AFD was in error and that when the only information the admin eventually provides indicates a reliance on pure numbers, this is a further indication of error. Otto4711 ( talk) 18:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Regardless of whether the closer counted votes or evaluated the arguments, I believe that the outcome was correct - the delete arguments were significantly stronger. Obviously if the closer closed on the basis of vote counts then this is not a good thing, but to overturn a decision because the right outcome happened for the wrong reason is pointless wikilawyering. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The delete arguments could have been addressed through editing, which you acknowledge in your statement below. This weakens the arguments for deletion considerably. Deleting a page that can be fixed through normal editing is always an error, regardless of how the closing admin arrived at that conclusion. Excusing a close with which you agree just because you agree with it despite any errors that the closing admin may have made is exactly the same as overturning it just because you disagree with it, which is expressly disallowed ("This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome"). Whether one agrees or disagrees with the outcome is irrelevant and strongly at cross-purposes to the process. Wiki-lawyering? This is Wiki-jury nullification. Dismissing the concern over the issues raised as "pointless" is insulting. Otto4711 ( talk) 01:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • No, in my comment below I said that individually, some of the problems could be fixed by editing if they were the only problem with the page, but given that they do not occur individually and that there are also problems that cannot be solved by editing then deletion is the only way forward. You will also note that I am endorsing the outcome but not necessarily the methodology (the right thing happening, but possibly for the wrong reason) because if I were closing the original debate based on evaluating the strengths of the arguments then I too would have closed it as a delete. Undeleteing something that might have been deleted for the wrong reasons just to redelete it for the right reasons is pointless. This is very different to overturning a decision that resulted from a correct determination of consensus just because you disagree with that consensus (the right thing happened for the right reasons). Thryduulf ( talk) 02:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The supposed inherent indiscrimination of the list is based on the false premise that it is commonplace for series that don't routinely feature LGBT content to do so. There were approximately 200 entries on this list, covering almost thirteen years of American television. Do you have any idea how many tens if not hundreds of thousands of television episodes have been produced in that time frame? A couple of hundred out of tens of thousands is hardly commonplace by any remotely plausible definition. GLAAD does an annual report on LGBT representation and for the 2009-10 season, out of 600 series regular and recurring prime time characters on the broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, The CW, Fox and NBC), 18, or 3%, are LGB; there are no trans characters on network TV. Of the series in which these characters appear, two have already been cancelled. On mainstream cable series (GLAAD counted 11 cable networks) there are only 25 regular LGBT characters. The number of LGBT characters is declining. Every other series being broadcast does not include LGBT characters or story lines on any regular basis, or indeed in most cases ever. The claim that LGBT representation on TV is unremarkable or routine or commonplace is an opinion, unsupported by actual facts. That 1997 marked the end of any meaningful reason to track this information is an idea that has no basis in reality. The supposed arbitrariness is addressed by asking two simple questions: Does the series routinely feature LGBT characters or story lines? If no, does a particular episode include an LGBT story line? And yes, I understand that you support the result regardless of the fatally flawed method used to obtain it. "It got done the wrong way but I got the result I wanted" is as shoddy thinking as "It got done the right way but I didn't get the result I wanted". Otto4711 ( talk) 19:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. I agree that the closer's statement above is annoying. But it doesn't make sense to overturn solely on that basis. This is actually a fundamental principle that has been affirmed at AfD many times: though it is courteous for an admin to explain closure of a close debate, it has never been required by policy. If the close was reasonable, then it was reasonable, whatever the closer says or doesn't say about it. Chick Bowen 05:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The close, based on the content of the discussion, was NOT reasonable. That's kind of the frigging point. Closing a complex discussion with a single word and refusing to back that close up beyond saying that more people said NO than YES is an utter failure on the part of the closing admin to do his actual job. "Duh, 10 is more than 8" is the illogic of someone who has no understanding or ability to implement actual AFD policy. There was nothing presented at AFD to indicate that any supposed issues with the article could not be addressed through the normal editing process but the closing admin blundered in with "10 more big than 8" and deleted with obviously no thought given to the arguments themselves. When an admin refuses to offer any rationale other than "more said X than Y" his decisions should be highly scrutinized and his basic understanding of the process should be questioned. Otto4711 ( talk) 05:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse outcome. While such a terse closing statement for such a verbosely contested XfD discussion is not ideal, and the apparent unwillingness to expand on it when requested is very concerning, the determination of the outcome was correct. The arguments for deletion that were not adequately refuted by those in favour of keep included that the inclusion criteria were arbitrary and arbitrarily applied; while the reason for choosing the Puppy Episode as the cutoff was properly explained and sourced, the actual items in the list were not sourced - no secondary sources were provided to show that the included themes exist in the listed items or that they were significant (and for the majority of list entries are not available) (violating WP:OR and WP:V; that the list was arbitrary as there was no distinction made between themes that were significant and those that were not; and that since the watershed moment the presence of such themes is now not unusual and as such listing all of them would violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE (and that the only way to prevent this would be to apply arbitrary inclusion criteria). There also seems to be consensus that an article about the watershed episode and that since then such themes are not unusual is both possible and desirable, but that a list of themes is not. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • comment is there any way of persuading closers to give proper reasons for contested AfD s in the future? If anyone wants to reopen the discussion on making that a requirement, there's the talk page. DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn as no consensus While there are genuine issues with the article, the balance between keep and delete votes justifies a close of no consensus, rather than delete. Many individuals voting to delete latched on to the title, despite a clear and well-sourced explanation for the non-arbitrary nature of the cutoff point. Alansohn ( talk) 01:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The problem isn't that the cutoff point is arbitrary, because as you point out it isn't - most delete and endorse !voters agree that the introduction to the list explained that well and supported it with references. The problem is that since that watershed moment, it has become unremarkable for episodes of American TV programmes to include LGBT themes. This led to the necessity of the arbitrary inclusion criteria in a vain attempt to stop it becoming a truly indiscriminate list. That the criteria were arbitrarily adhered to would not be reason, on its own, to delete the list merely to either seriously thin the list or (probably easier) just start again. That the entries on the list were not supported by reliable secondary sources, taken in isolation, is another argument to starting again. However given that the list is inherently arbitrary and/or indiscriminate doing either of these would not result in a useful, pointful list. The closest I can come to defining what the list was acutally functioning as is "List of post-Ellen American television episodes with no regular LGBT characters, story arcs or plot devices and which do not normally focus on LGBT issues, that include significant or incidental themes that original research by one or more Wikipedia editors suggests are related to LGBT issues." which shows just how arbitrary the list was. Thryduulf ( talk) 02:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I would strongly disagree with the unremarkability of American TV series to include LGBT themes, given the tendency of the media and other reliable sources, and interest groups on both sides to, well, remark upon them. Regardless, since the adoption of the internal combustion engine it is no longer remarkable for car manufacturers to introduce new models of existing vehicles, yet we maintain lists of automobile makes and models. Since you acknowledge that the list could have been fixed (despite your belief that deleting it was "easier", which is true of most problematic articles), deletion was not appropriate. Your description of the list is ridiculously verbose and inaccurate, since it does not require OR to determine the content of an individual episode per WP:PSTS, but since reliable secondary sources could have been added their absence is not a basis for deletion. "This is not sourced to a secondary source" is in no way the same as "this cannot be sourced to a secondary source". A scope for the list was suggested in the AFD but the discussion was closed before any additional comment was made on it. If only there were a talk page on which such issues as the scope of the list could be discussed... Otto4711 ( talk) 18:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn as per the nom. I particularly with his claims about the fundamental weakness of most of the delete arguments. If the closer had provided more of a rationale for his decision I might be inclined to accept it, but since so many of the delete votes smacked and WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST (not to mention "the title is bad", something that should have been discussed on the talk page), I think it should have been a "No consensus" decision, especially since the total votes were so close even before you took into account some of the weak deletion arguments compared to the keep arguments... — Hunter Kahn ( c) 08:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. The deletes had the strength in both numbers and arguments. Quantpole ( talk) 11:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse The arguments for deletion were stronger than the keep arguments. This is a perfectly valid outcome and within the admin's discretion. AniMate 01:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_December_4&oldid=1141925657"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE