Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of media portrayals of bisexuality

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 redirect to Media portrayals of bisexuality. Consensus is against keeping. It's up to editors to determine whether and what to merge. Sandstein 10:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of media portrayals of bisexuality

[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)

Completely redundant to other articles (WP:REDUNDANTFORK), especially Media portrayals of bisexuality and List of fictional bisexual characters (and its sublists) which are much more sourced than this is. This is a complete mess, being almost entirely unsourced and made up of original research (probably slashfic/fanfiction-type wishful thinking behind more than a few of the entries that have accreted over the years; actual quote from one entry: "Bisexuality simple fact") and has been tagged for OR and lack of sources for over 5 years. Of the very few that are sourced, many are from unreliable sources. It would need WP:TNT even if it were a valid topic, which it's not since, as I said, this is completely covered better by many other articles. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; low-quality and entirely redundant. (Unrelated, boy is that a lot of discussion categories.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Media_portrayals_of_bisexuality. My second choice will be to delete.

I am not sure WHY there should be a list like this? Why is just having Media_portrayals_of_bisexuality#Film or Media_portrayals_of_bisexuality#Television not enough? Any compelling arguments? Another point is that it competes with other lists, such as, for instance, List_of_graphic_art_works_with_LGBT_characters or List_of_dramatic_television_series_with_LGBT_characters:_1970s–2000s. Of course every bisexuality-related list will be within a correspondent LGBT(Q) list for obvious reason. Any historical knowledge how a similar problem was dealt in the past?

Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kolma8, that is why I am proposing it be merged with the List of fictional bisexual characters page. I think there is value in the entries, but I also don't want duplication either. Kolma8, I also agree with your suggestion to change the page into a redirect if the merger with the List of fictional bisexual characters is not possible. Historyday01 (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article meets WP:CLN WP:AOAL as a navigation list. Article is too large to fit well into another article and will certainly grow. // Timothy :: talk 08:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that we already have such a list at List of fictional bisexual characters, which sends readers to many sublists as well. Those pages actually have been trying to exercise quality control. This is therefore a crappy fork. "Growing" is the problem here. This unsourced junk shouldn't be fit anywhere (the aforementioned list articles are made up of sublists). Crossroads ^-talk- 17:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I agree with the argument by Timothy Blue more than the argument by Vaticidalprophet, as I would not say it is "low-quality and entirely redundant." However, I would say it shares a lot with the List of fictional bisexual characters page, so I would propose that it be merged with that page. Historyday01 (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The entries that are not reliably sourced should not be copied anywhere but deleted, per WP:BURDEN and WP:NOR. I know for a fact that many of them are false with no sources for them; I already deleted one as an example. Some of the entries here are WP:PRIMARY sourced, which is also bad because OR is often involved in interpreting the primary source. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have already copied them to a sandbox, as I was planning to go through them all, but I'm really only talking about the reliably-sourced entries here and think they could easily be merged with the List of fictional bisexual characters and turned into a redirect to that page. Historyday01 (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just be sure that the only ones kept are the ones that reliable sources identify as definitely and canonically bisexual. A source talking about fan speculation or saying 'we want them to be' is not enough. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. Today I moved all the reliable sourced entries to the List of fictional bisexual characters and newly created List of bisexual characters in television page, while all the other entries are sitting in one of my sandboxes and I'm going through them one by one, adding them (if there is a reliable source) to the appropriate list page. That's my plan at least. --Historyday01 (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge as complicated, and I'm referring to the video game portion. A list like this is very debatable; in a lot of these games, the choice is optional. In some video games, like those choose-your-own-adventure games on mobile devices, they give you the option of being in a relationship with either man or woman because they have no way to determine either what your gender or preference is. In these cases, it would be the player being bisexual, not the character or game. P anini ^🥪 14:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:OR magnet. Some of the listed items are clearly under LGBTQ umbrella, but listing them bi on the basis of some OR (as in: not a reference in sight) claiming that the characters are portrayed fluid... as if. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and clean-up I honestly think the list article is better than Media portrayals of bisexuality, and the list should be kept with the other article merged into it (refs specifically, where available). It needs some clean-up, but it's valuable; indeed, it is more valuable than the not-list article, which is mostly a prose list without any clear encyclopedic discussion of the portrayals and different importance given to certain characters/shows that seems to come from editor bias of their favorites. I.e. just having the list is serving the same function and much more NPOV. I also think the list serves a distinct purpose to the List of fictional bisexual characters - that list is of characters that either self-identify as bisexual or have been identified by outside parties to be bisexual, while the portrayals list is broader to include portrayals of bisexual identification as well as non-identified bisexual behavior and various fictional bisexual characters, i.e. those (especially in old works and recent "woke" works) that don't use labels but are clearly still important representation. It needs clean-up; everything without a ref should at least be hidden for now, and "fluid" is a dubious category. But it's the better article of the "media portrayals of" ones. Kingsif (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree on that point. I would say that it would be better to move the entries on the existing list which have reliable sources in the List of fictional bisexual characters, then turn the page into a redirect. As for the Media portrayals of bisexuality page, it clearly needs work and that is going to be one of the next pages I'm going to try and improve, section by section. Historyday01 (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. Bisexual characters and media portrayals of bisexuality are distinct categories, did you not manage to comprehend my comment? If any of the three should be deleted, it should be Media portrayals of bisexuality. It's a NPOV nightmare that has no more useful content than the list, and is much harder to read. Since it's much easier to make and keep the list clean, that's what should be done, no questions. You're right we don't need all three, and the lists are more valuable, but distinct enough to keep both. Kingsif (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did read your comment. I agree with you that "Bisexual characters and media portrayals of bisexuality are distinct categories" which is why I would argue that the Media portrayals of bisexuality should be kept (albeit thoroughly cleaned up to be much better, so it isn't a "NPOV nightmare" as you point out), while the List of media portrayals of bisexuality can be turned into a redirect to the List of fictional bisexual characters page after all the entries with reliable sources are moved from the main page. This would reduce redundancy between the two pages. And the fact that the unsourced entries won't be there anymore shouldn't be a concern, as I've already copied all of that to a sandbox and am planning on going through every entry, adding a source (if there is one), then adding it to the List of fictional bisexual characters or any other relevant page. I'd further say that the List of fictional bisexual characters and Media portrayals of bisexuality pages have value, although the latter is couched by what I said earlier. I agree with you that the lists are valuable, but I'd also say that analysis pages, when done right, can be valuable too. Historyday01 (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on I think everything in this comment. Kingsif (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how media portrayals are meaningfully different from characters. Portrayals of bisexuality are portrayals of bisexual (behaviorally) characters. We need RS identifying the characters as bisexual/engaging in bisexuality regardless of exact title. The better one's lead can be modified if needed; however, the sourcing standard has to be the same no matter the title, and "non-identified bisexual behavior" is an invitation to commit OR because some fans see almost anything as bisexual behavior. My main point is that we don't need or want two 'lists of bisexuality in fiction', and the one that should be deleted is the one that is mostly OR. As for the prose "media portrayals" page, whatever work that needs is a separate matter. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with you that the media portrayals page needs work, but I would say that rather than deleting the list, it should be turned into a redirect to the List of fictional bisexual characters page. Historyday01 (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

we don't need or want two 'lists of bisexuality in fiction' - then merge them into different lists in the same article, with clear referencing needs and an appropriately broad title. the prose "media portrayals" page, whatever work that needs is a separate matter - it's not a separate matter since it's nothing more than a prose, NPOV, version of the list. If you want to argue the list is pointless, so is the prose article; if it isn't, then one of them is redundant. Some form of merging, no deleting, is necessary and the clear solution, and obviously everything needs references to avoid fanwank and OR - nobody is disputing that. But I highly question your knowledge of anything relating to queer media if you genuinely don't see how media portrayals are meaningfully different from characters. Characters are, in the material, identified explicitly with a label. The label of bisexual is recent, to the last few decades. Yet there are many works of fiction before then with characters which portray bisexuality and are important representation. It's also possible to have characters that explicitly aren't bisexual and still portray bisexuality; take homosexual characters that had heterosexual relationships before coming out. The two are distinct, and both significant. Kingsif (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My "knowledge of anything relating to queer media" says that when it comes to "many works of fiction before then with characters which portray bisexuality", if there are sources so identifying them, the same entry can be put in the other list(s). It's the same thing as is done for real historical persons. If the character/person was not called "bisexual" in their own time, but is now considered so by the sources, then it counts. As for the latter example, there of course still needs sources calling that bisexuality (which may not be done in some such scenarios for the reason that it contradicts their true orientation), so we're again back in the same spot - it can go in the other list as a (behaviorally) bisexual character. A media portrayal of bisexuality is a bisexual character, even if how they ended up on the relevant list isn't from saying "I'm bisexual" but from consistently being identified as such by reliable sources. That's already how the other list works. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will say, on a related note, that I am currently working on completely revamping the Media portrayals of bisexuality page and will be done in a couple days. I'm trying to base it around either GLAAD reports or other sources which mention important bisexuals, rather than the current format. I'm planning on doing the same thing for the Media portrayal of lesbianism page and the Media portrayals of transgender people page too. Just have to do one page at a time. Historyday01 (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, Crossroads, what you want is actually a merge. The List of bisexual characters currently explicitly excludes those that are not labeled bisexual, even with sources. So my suggestion to create different lists in the same article with a broader title (the "portrayals of bisexuality" would be suitably broad for both, in fact) for all the sourced entries is actually what you seem to want. You're still infuriatingly mistaken by saying A media portrayal of bisexuality is a bisexual character. No, no it isn't. And that incorrect assumption will be perpetuated if editors like you insist on conflating them in lists. Kingsif (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kingsif on that point. A media portrayal is not necessarily a character. There can be bisexual series, music, film, etc. That is the limit of a page only focused on characters. Historyday01 (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional bisexual characters opens by saying, This is a list of fictional characters that either self-identify as bisexual or have been identified by outside parties to be bisexual. (emphasis added). I don't see how it excludes anything. And despite any possible difference in the names, this is a de facto character list anyway. The concept of a "bisexual series" and the like seems very fuzzy and like an OR magnet, and I consider it unlikely there are sources that call a series but none of its characters bisexual, but if that did occur that can be discussed in the prose "media portrayals" article. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fictional characters list only includes fictional characters. In terms of a bisexual series, there would need to be reliable sourcing that such a series is out there, which I imagine exists. I'm saying that bisexual representation goes beyond just the characters. The characters list is fine, but there is also a place for a analysis page too which shows how that representation changes over time. Historyday01 (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. At this point it's the same as listing "media portrayals of coffee shops", in other words it appears too often for a list to be necessary. It's also far too much of a magnet for original research as opposed to actual confirmed bisexual characters._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But, Zxcvbnm, would you support turning the page into a redirect to the List of fictional bisexual characters page? I think this page largely duplicates that one, at least in subject, since it has "actual confirmed bisexual characters" and is not indiscriminate. Historyday01 (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The names are like apples and oranges; a redirect seems totally unnecessary, if not confusing._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also note that even though Historyday says they have moved all sourced entries to List of fictional bisexual characters, this list does not include any characters from comics, podcasts, television, and other media. It's incomplete, so even if people can't get their head around the fact portrayal of bisexuality is not the same as a bisexual character (first example to come to mind: Kissing Jessica Stein is a movie about a woman trying to work out if she's bisexual and decides she isn't, but it's certainly bisexual canon), a merge at least is damn necessary. Kingsif (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comics and podcasts, the few that are reliably sourced, can still just go in List of fictional bisexual characters (also, those podcasts appear to be non-notable and primary-sourced; don't we avoid listing non-notable media because pretty soon you end up listing random personal webpages?). There's also List of graphic art works with LGBT characters, which isn't bisexual-specific and needs work, but does cover the comics topic. Television is absolutely covered at List of bisexual characters in television, which was probably size-split from the general list in the past and is linked from the lead. Kissing Jessica Stein can go in Media portrayals of bisexuality (it's in the current list as depicting "fluid" bisexuality, which is of course unsourced). Crossroads ^-talk- 23:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsif, let me say that the List of fictional bisexual characters does have sections for "graphic novels" and "webcomics," which I would say comprises comics. As for podcasts, they are currently on the List of LGBT characters in radio and podcasts page (split from the aforementioned list page), with other LGBTQ characters, and the television characters are on their own specific page (List of bisexual characters in television), as are anime (List of bisexual characters in anime) and Western animation characters (List of bisexual characters in animation). But, yes, you are right that the fictional bisexual characters page is "incomplete" in the way you pointed out, and a merge makes sense. So, Crossroads, comics can definitely be incorporated into the List of fictional bisexual characters, while podcasts can go into the page I previously mentioned. And yes, there is a List of graphic art works with LGBT characters which definitely "needs work," and I'd like to also mention the List of webcomics with LGBT characters too, which includes bisexual and other LGBTQ characters. So, yes, you are right that "television is absolutely covered at List of bisexual characters in television." And yes, it was "size-split from the general list" (originally from a page titled "LGBT characters in television and radio" (now called the "List of LGBT characters in radio and podcasts"). But, sure Kissing Jessica Stein can go in Media portrayals of bisexuality, but it is an example of something which is a portrayal which isn't a character. And again, sourcing of these pages is important. Historyday01 (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, there's a lot of articles that probably need a MAIN or some navigation template, and a lot of clean-up, and just proposing to delete one of them is no help at all. If Historyday has copied all the current text into a draft (if not, I will) then we can at least start moving and merging, pruning examples. Nobody here wants to keep all the unsourced "fluid" or "fans interpret" examples, but there's enough good material to fix. It wouldn't even need TNT because it's a list. You can hide items so easily while working on it. Kingsif (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The title/concept is redundant and the content is unacceptable. That's why it's been nominated. Most (perhaps all) of the would-be legit entries are already covered better in the good lists, and the rest can be. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif, I have actually moved all the text, apart from some entries I already moved to other pages, into a sandbox for now, so examples can be pruned there as you put it. Historyday01 (talk) 15:13, 19 February 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.