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

The result was keep. MuZemike 20:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian kiss episode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Delete. A random list of television episodes, with minor contextual coverage, that contain lesbian kisses. Some notability concerns and there are original research problems - none of the specific episodes have any third-party commentary. The concept on the whole seems to be notable, so it needs to be mentioned somewhere, but I don't think the issue as a whole deserves its own article. Dale 02:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a well written article about a common television plot device. If each listed episode needs a reference ... it can start by citing the episode itself that anyone can verify that the alleged kiss did in fact take place and was a plot or sub-plot device. And yes, there are indeed plenty of articles and even books devoted to lesbian/LGBT portrays in mainstream media and this subject is a prominent example. Here's quite a few books and a few papers, and at least a few dozen news articles. More can certainly be found by tweaking the search phrase. -- Banjeboi 03:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What a joke, this is nothing more than a silly collection of television episodes where two girls kiss. Puh-leeez. JBsupreme (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Based on what Benjiboi found in Google books and Google news search, its a notable topic. Dream Focus 10:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep How times have changed. When it happened on Roseanne in 1994, it was seen by some as a milestone on the road of moral depravity, by others as a a landmark in tolerance. [1] Now, it's so ordinary that a new generation sees this as trivia. [2] But it has been noticed along the way by the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe. People still keep track of these things. [3]. Mandsford (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have begun adding sources, and tagging many of the episodes noted in the NYT article. I have found 4 critical commentaries on listed episodes on about 20 minutes. I believe that each episode in the list should be sourced, but this seems like a simple enough prospect. The language in the sources clearly acknowledges this as its own phenomenon, and there are no notability issues. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion Merge with Very special episode and rename the combined article to something conceptual. By combining multiple articles about television ratings manipulation methods into one article, the concept will be better explored and explained. Miami33139 (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an excellent wikilink to include but Very special episode includes all manner of subjects whereas this focuses on a just a few around sexuality issues. That would seem to compromise both articles. A template on television could tie the articles together. -- Banjeboi 00:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikilink added to lede. -- Banjeboi 00:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete/Merge I am sure that in most of the episodes listed a woman did kiss a woman. I have no idea why this is notable. Ought we have a list of episodes in which characters got cancer? How about a list in which a character bought a car? The sources brought up by Benjiboi refer to individual episodes but show no demonstrable phenomenon, no discussion of any sort of a trend, no evidence that there should be an article documenting every time a woman has kissed a woman on television. - Schrandit (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Schrandit raises no policy/guideline based reasons for deletion. The subject is notable because the plot device itself meets our guidelines for having an article. It has received substantial coverage from multiple, independent reliable sources. An article on episodes where a character got cancer or bought a car would be absolutely appropraite if the same guidelines were met. If you wish the list portion (in the table) removed, that is a content dispute, and would be an appropriate discussion on the article talk page. I see the current list as supporting the article prose, which needs expansion, but discusses the subject directly. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 19:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought my notability concerns we pretty well spelled out. Again, there are independent reliable sources saying that woman X kissed woman Y on show Z, this I do not dispute. There are no sources saying there is any sort of a Lesbian Kiss Espisode phenomenon or trend. preliminary google results yield no evidence of the use of the phrase "Lebsian Kiss Episode" any where but Wikipedia. This is just a random list of shows on which a woman has kissed a woman with no explaination of importance. We might as well have a list of shows on which people have eaten pizza. - Schrandit (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entire first reference is multiple pages from the New York Times on the phenomenon that also includes a researched list of a dozen examples. It goes on about the history of these episodes. Several of the other sources cited also refer to the entire genre of episodes in their commentary. One (ref #8 from the New York Post behind a pay-wall here) even goes so far as to call it "the obligatory lesbian-kiss scene" in the headline. The fact that in less than a decade it went from ground-breaking to "obligatory" speaks directly toward the notability of the subject itself. Considering the additional book references that BanjeBoi has linked above, it clearly surpasses the requirements of all of our guidelines. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: and rename to "Television episodes featuring lesbian kissing". This is certainly notable given the prevailing attitudes of the day toward this type of display. GreyWyvern^⚒ 18:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notability indicated by sources. Everyking (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, but rename to "List of television episodes featuring same-sex kissing" (or something like that) because reliable sources aren't really supporting the "lesbian kiss episode" phrase and the article could easily be expanded to include gay kissing. Comment: I dunno why this has to be such a big deal, frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, its a topic which has been noted and analyzed by reliable sources, such as the 2005 NY Times piece cited in the article.--Milowent (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I've seen several articles on this phenomenon over the years. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - since not all of these were lesbians but some were just females kissing... –xeno^talk 21:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but give it a better name. Joe Chill (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. For those calling for a rename please know that sources cite these as "lesbian kisses" regardless of the sexuality of the characters or actors. That they may or may not actually be lesbian likely should be spelled out in the lede but does not necessitate a name change. Also Same-sex kiss might be a good article in and of itself as two men kissing has certainly been covered in a similar way. Likely Gay kiss episode could be folded into Same-sex kiss episode with a summary of this article included there. -- Banjeboi 00:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, sources prove notability. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 14:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (article creator/main author) - Sources that existed before the AFD was opened (NYT article, AfterEllen article, the books, etc.) support the notability of the topic, as do the sources on some of the individual episodes which have their own articles (especially Don't Ask, Don't Tell and Sugar & Spice). Additional sources found during this discussion indicate the likelihood that the topic can be expanded upon, not deleted. As side notes: I don't agree that these episodes may be reasonably classified as "very special episodes" as that term is used and understood so merger or linkage to that article is not appropriate. I titled the article as I did because the article is about the phenomenon of this sub-genre. There is not to the best of my knowledge a similar phenomenon regarding male-on-male kissing and I have never seen a source that even discusses the idea that there is a "gay male kiss episode" sub-genre, so I disagree with genericizing this article by including male-male kisses. Since sources use the phrase "lesbian kiss episode" in discussing the phenomenon it is reasonable to use that phrase in the article's title. The article could be renamed to "List of lesbian kiss episodes" if feelings run particularly high on emphasizing the list portion of the article but I don't see the need for it. Otto4711 (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Itoo am eskimo about this article becuase of its seemingly narrow scope and clumsy phrasing in some small areas. However, the depth and rbeadth of the sources and citations makes me thing that i tshould stay. If even a 1/4th of those sources are real (not dead links, Google searches, or other such nonsense WP:RS-violations) then they should stay. Otherwise, I recommend pruning and deleting until this raticle is more encyclopedic than fancrufty. User:Smith Jones 17:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep is discussed non-trivially in mainstream news media.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I am against retitling this article to Television episodes featuring lesbian kissing or in any way to broaden it for gay male kisses. The sources, seemingly mostly reliable, that Benjiboi provided clearly use the wording "lesbian kiss episode." If any episode featuring a lesbian kiss could be added to this article, the article may become too long. Not that I am sure how many lesbian kisses have been carried out throughout the history of television. But my point is that this article defines this "term" in a way that is not only about two women having kissed in an episode; it is more so about "an episode in which a seemingly heterosexual female character engages in a kiss with a lesbian, possibly lesbian or bisexual character" and where "[in] most instances, the potential of a relationship between the women does not survive past the episode and the lesbian or suspected lesbian never appears again." And as to my other objection... I object because this type of gimmick is not as prominent with gay male kisses, due to most of society typically being more comfortable seeing two women kissing than two men kissing. Flyer22 (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No real encyclopedia, and no serious scholarly resource, would harbor this kind of salacious trivia. The fact that people are showing up to !vote "keep" only proves that this "community" doesn't mean to build an encyclopedia, but something else, and that a result based in "consensus" is completely different from one based upon policy and its original intent. We will not see "Lesbian kiss episode" or anything like it in Britannica anytime soon.67.160.100.233 (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are not Encyclopaedia Britannica. We can afford a much wider scope than paper encyclopedias. Please read WP:NOTPAPER for a start. If you want an encyclopedia like Britannica, please use Britannica. --Cyclopia^talk 10:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• snowball keep And significant to cultural history and the social shift in attitudes towards acceptance of LGBT identity. Sticky Parkin 19:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, generally if there is even one delete besides nom a snowball doesn't apply. -- Banjeboi 02:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article is fairly clear about its subject matter - an important cultural trend documented in secondary reliable sources. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - great moments in fap history. Tarc (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename in more neutral and less OR fashion, like Same-sex kissing in television. The information is notable and the article can be kept, but there are several OR and bias issues. --Cyclopia^talk 10:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Renaming this article to Same-sex kissing in television would transform it into a completely different article. What are the several OR and bias issues you feel this article has? Do you also mean the fact that it is only focusing on lesbian kisses? If so, the reasons for that are explained above. Flyer22 (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article provides multiple reliable and verifiable sources to support notability. Alansohn (talk) 13:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as somewhat of a pov-fork from Media portrayal of lesbianism, see [4] Siawase (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing that WP:Fork actually applies here? -- Banjeboi 03:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The acronym for what I was going for would be WP:POVFORK, which yeah, may not apply in the strictest sense. But the way i see it, the very focused scope of this article as it stands right now is based on a premise so narrow it goes into POV territory ("lesbian antics are great for a quick ratings grab, and not much else"), ignoring other aspects of media coverage of displays of lesbian affection, even going so far as to ignoring different points of view that exists for some of the specific episodes in the list. (ie: the article here only describes it as a great ratings grab, ignoring both the pioneering aspects of some the episodes (several of these are the first ever portrayal of any sort of lesbian affection in the medium or genre) as well as how the creators/producers have described how from their pov it certainly wasn't an easy ratings grab, but something they had to argue at length with studio heads to even get on the air. (sources for this at the archive link I provided). It also (out of necessity due to its scope) ignores the inevitable flipside of the coin, ie episodes/shows that do portray lesbianism, but where kissing or any sort of physical affection was excluded due to, basically, homophobic attitudes of the powers that be. The article could probably be expanded/amended to be more neutral, but then the very narrow scope of it would lose much of its meaning, and the contents would be better covered within the context of the article where it was previously housed. For example these episodes and broader commentary on them could be covered alongside other tv portrayals of lesbianism in a chronological order. And, like I said at the link, certainly include the "lesbian kiss episode" phenomenon in that article as one aspect of tv portrayals of lesbianism. But it is just one aspect of many, and as such in my opinion not best suited to a separate article. Siawase (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In the year and a half since that discussion took place the list has doubled in size. A merger would throw the portrayal article out of balance. The article focuses on the ratings ploy aspect because that's what's included in the source material I've found. The article does not state the ploy as fact; rather, it reports the conclusions of The New York Times. If there are sources in which the non-ratings aspects are discussed then I certainly encourage that this information be added. Otto4711 (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But is the list in the form it is now really of much encyclopedic value? First, I fail to see how the inclusion of a kiss specifically is significant enough that it needs to be separate from the already existing Lists of American television episodes with LGBT themes. Second, what is the intended scope of this list? Right now it appears to be the beginnings of a list that if completed will include every episode in which a female-on-female liplock appears. But there are a lot of these episodes. [5] is a fairly comprehensive site, and after parsing their alphabetical listing I found 466(!) entries for episodes listed as "Mainstream TV-series", not all of which contain kissing, but certainly the vast majority. Would this list really be appropriate for wikipedia if it was expanded to include hundreds of entries? If instead it was trimmed back to episodes where relevant commentary exists in reliable sources, then it would likely come down to a much more manageable size and would not need to be in a separate list format, but could be included in a broader prose coverage of notable portrayals of lesbianism on television. Also, the fact that this article is based largely on a single NYT article rather than broader coverage in academic sources is problematic in and of itself in the first place. Siawase (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The list is currently restricted to American broadcast series because the sources discuss LKEs in terms of American broadcast television. I am unaware of sources from outside the US that discuss LKEs in terms of ratings pops or anything else. If there are such sources then the article can certainly be revised to reflect it. The restriction to American broadcast series eliminates the vast majority of the externally-linked list. If you are dissatisfied with the NYT serving as the supposed basis of the article then add material from the various sources linked above. If there has been an evolution in how LKEs are presented and/or received then write it and source it. I'm still not seeing the problem with this as a stand-alone article. Other types of LGBT-related episodes could also probably serve as the bases of standalone articles, including the "coming out episode", the "AIDS episode", the "gay wedding episode". These have each been the subject of separate scholarly attention. Otto4711 (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, the list right now includes several cable shows, which I guess should be removed then? In the interest of getting a clearer view of what we're talking about exactly, I parsed and sifted through the listings on the site I linked to and came up with a list of approximately 100 entries from American broadcast shows. I haven't done extensive research on each entry right now so there may be some abberations, but if the article is kept and an exhaustive list is deemed to be appropriate for inclusion, I can look into each entry and verify that it contains a kiss and that the actresses are identified correctly. Verifying that they're broadcast shows and which exact date they aired should be fairly straight forward (if time consuming) cross referencing work. Siawase (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• To me this seems like a sub article to Media portrayal of lesbianism rather than a fork. It should be summarized there. -- Banjeboi 16:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But if the table is trimmed down/converted to prose, I don't think enough material will remain that a spin-out article for length is really necessary. Siawase (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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