Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queer coding

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. Technically a WP:SNOW close, but a WP:SPEEDY close might also be justifiable. Two rationales for deletion are given. One is WP:IDONTLIKEIT; even when the dislike is based on (potentially legitimate) NPOV concerns that is not a rationale for deletion. The other rationale was that it was a duplicate; the other article named was the duplicate and has been redirected here. Consensus is clear that this is a notable topic. As there are discussions elsewhere, I am closing this early. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Queer coding edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article is the exact duplicate of Sissy villain created by a mysterious Penpaper123 but has been recently edited by the same author of Sissy villain. The article is similar because it uses the same homosexual websites such as pride.com to imply the suggestion that Disney characters are queer when Disney Animation has denied such claims. Never in the history of Disney animation has there ever been an LGBTQ character unless its Onward. Painting beloved characters such as Jafar and Scar as queer is ruining the nostalgia and golden shimmer of the Disney classics. Those days the concept of queer never existed and to officially state these characters are queer is a disrespect to traditions and values. Let me repeat, what do these people use as justification: YouTube, blogspot, Disney, pride.com! violating WP:NPOV 7falcon23 (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep None of this explains why the article should be deleted — deletion is not cleanup. I recommend just removing the "Impact" section per above. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment surely identifying characters as queer would *burnish* their “golden shimmer” rather than ruining it, no? Anyone who thinks that queer is a more recent concept than Ursula the Sea Witch can see me for a reading list. Mccapra (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom has a history of railing against things they perceive as part of the "gay agenda", and not only does a google search for queer coding in disney movies return tons of usable sources, it's a suggested completion for queer coding, demonstrating how often the term is searched for. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep incoherent AFD, valid article. Artw (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject meets WP:GNG per significant independent coverage in a basic WP:BEFORE search (e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4]). This article needs to be improved and better sources need to be added, but AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. An article on a notable topic should not be deleted just because the article is poorly written. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and snowball close as soon as prudence allows. No valid deletion reason given, and most of the potential valid reasons have already been counter-argued. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and snowball close. Nom seems to have their own agenda and needs to consider how their values differ from Wikipedia's. MarnetteD|Talk 21:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. While the topic may be notable, the sources currently in the article aren't what we'd consider reliable or independent. This article needs a lot of work on sourcing. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - While I want to give this topic “benefit of the doubt” (it certainly deserves to be notable) it needs independent reliable sourcing to properly establish that notability. Blueboar (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since some editors seem not to have noticed my !vote above and are insisting that we don't have sourcing:

Note that this is the result of less than 10 minutes of google searching, and there are some scholarly results in there, as well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poor unfortunate nomination. So WP:DISRUPTIVE, so WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is just a user having a hissy fit towards the fact that his childhood, "traditions and values" is being somehow pissed on. We don't determine deletion based on a person's feelings; we determine it based on the coverage of the topic. Look at how freaking easy it was to find reliable sources about this topic. You'd have to try hard not to find any of them. Two results of the first page of a Google Scholar search are pieces MAINLY about queer coding. Hell, you don't even need to go to Google Scholar. It only took me reading the first page of a Google search where I just typed in the phrase where I got four features mainly about queer coding. [5] [6] [7] [8] three of which aren't even LGBTQ-themed publications. Just close this bullshit. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment. The nominator, in !voting Delete on the article Madonna as a gay icon, used the same nonsensical moral outrage that had nothing to do with the topic's notability or coverage. This is indicative that they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. I mean, look at this crazy stuff:

I have never seen such blasphemy in my life. Painting a person like Judy Garland as a homosexual is blasphemy and a defamation against the woman who was married to a man! This is utter cursing, and I know how I feel when someone says I am LGBT. These articles foment division and hatred towards the heterosexual people and is a sign that these criminals are desperate to see at least 10% of the world population converted to LGBT before their mortal lifespan is finished. If this continues the fiefdom of LGBT will dominate and completely make Wikipedia's suffix meaningless.
Just take a look what they have done to American animation. Armed with their liberal news media they have completely hijacked films such as Luca and Mitchells vs. Machines. No longer does it mean to say that if you have a girlfriend or a boyfriend, it means that you are gay because you are the same gender! What utter nonsense. Thousands of prominent authors stated they have boyfriends and girlfriends. Can we rule them as homosexuals? No, only if ultra liberal news media like NBC come to their defense and spin tales of how the rainbow is LGBT...if you see a rainbow outside...or wait if you wear a rainbow pin...Oh that must be LGBT! This is the frenzy of avarice they have against the human kind who continue to live the life nature intended.

The user is clearly trying to input they're own point of view onto the encylopedia, and ironically is themselves violating WP:NPOV 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nomination seems to be based heavily on the nominator’s ignorant LGBTQ-phobic opinions barely hidden behind flimsy claims of “NPOV”/“inadequate sourcing”. Dronebogus (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notion that queerness did not exist "in those days" is misguided and ill-informed at best. The appeal to "traditions and values" suggests we are not dealing with a best case scenario. Richard Nevell (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Where are my supporters? I thought I had some traditional supporters by my side? This is unbelievable. I am like the only person in Wikipedia who tries to delete NPOV articles related to LGBT. The citations used were - 1)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxokB7sfopc 2)https://andreasdeja.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-evolution-of-jafar.html 3)https://ohmy.disney.com/movies/2015/10/13/8-things-you-didnt-know-about-aladdin/ 4)https://controlforever.com/read/queercoding-and-horror-films/ . Do you not see those citations are not valid in Wikipedia?

Note user User:MjolnirPants noted this citation: https://www.insider.com/luca-lgbt-gay-queer-coded-2021-6 is good to be used in queer coding. If you look at Luca (2021 film), the director explicitly denied the main character isn't LGBT, then how can that citation that says Luca is LGBT and queer coded be valid? All these citations are following WP:SYNTH which is using a variety of sources to imply a suggestion that characters are queer-coded when they are not! Whatever you do do not ruin Classical Golden Age Disney. There is zero evidence that the characters Jafar and Scar are LGBT and to the extent therefore they are queer-coded. 7falcon23 (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT do duplicate votes when you've already nominated the article for deletion. That is an abuse of the deletion process. There is no WP:SYNTH going on here; all of the sources provided state the concept is real and that those characters, while maybe not really LGBT, are queer-coded, and no one, as well as not the article, is stating the characters are actually LBGT, just that they have traits and characteristics that "codes" them as LGBT. Just using multiple sources is not automatically synthesis. You're not even understanding the concept of queer coding properly. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2021 (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.