Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queer coding

Queer coding

[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. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:23, 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]