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. Courcelles 18:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality in Star Trek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Wikipedia doesn't need 4,000 words on Sexuality in Star Trek and the sources don't justify a separate treatment. I agree that there are a few salvageable aspects of this article (particularly the Kirk-Uhura kiss, first kiss between black and white actors on US television), but parts of it are a novel synthesis based on flimsy sources. The salvageable aspects belong in Star Trek. A merge or redirect is insufficient, because "sexuality in Star Trek" ought to be a redlink: it is neither a scholarly subject nor a plausible search term. Delete. —S Marshall T/C 22:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The topic of sexuality in "Star Trek" seems to be a sufficiently scholarly subject that the University of Illinois Press devoted much of a book to it: Sexual Generations: Star Trek: The Next Generation and Gender. Problems with the article should be dealt with through normal editing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That book's about Gender in Star Trek. Gender isn't the same as sexuality.—S Marshall T/C 10:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's not a great article, but with the sourcing available, both in the article and mentioned above, there is enough to sustain and improve it. gnfnrf (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Based on a lack of convincing rationale to delete, although does require a clean up and additional referencing. Pol430 talk to me 13:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What aspects do you find unconvincing?—S Marshall T/C 17:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree some parts of the article are a Synthesis, I do not believe that these parts represent a significant proportion of the article. That there is sufficient remaining material to warrant there being an article. Pol430 talk to me 18:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• But which of the sources is actually about sexuality in Star Trek? The article cites a substantial number of sources; let's take then one by one.

  The first and second sources are primary, and clearly represent original research that must be excised. The third, fourth and fifth sources are about the Kirk-Uhura kiss which (it's common ground) needs to be covered somewhere on Wikipedia, but it isn't about sexuality in Star Trek in general. The sixth source is about sexuality but doesn't mention Star Trek at all. The seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth sources are about the Kirk-Uhura kiss. Source 11 is to a site that, at the top of the first page, complains that homosexuality and bisexuality aren't covered in Star Trek. Source 12 demonstrates that a Star Trek actor is gay, which while interesting, doesn't relate to sexuality in Star Trek at all. Source 13, an interview with Gene Roddenberry, contains Roddenberry's frank admission that he didn't tackle sexuality in Star Trek--Roddenberry specifically says that sexual attitudes "are not permitted to be discussed" on the episodes of the show he wrote. Source 14 says that as of 1991, gay and lesbian characters were allowed to "appear unobtrusively aboard the Enterprise - neither objects of pity nor melodramatic attention." Source 15 is to the same site as source 11. Source 16 says that an actor portraying a character who appeared on a Star Trek spinoff went on to portray a lesbian character on an entirely different show. Source 17 has succumbed to linkrot. Source 18 bemoans that lesbian and gay characters had not (as of 1995) appeared on the show. Source 19 bemoans that scripts containing lesbian and gay characters were rewritten so as not to contain them. So does source 20. Source 21 supports the fact that a character from Deep Space 9 (Dax) constitutes a genderless parasite that can occupy both male and female hosts, which is interesting in terms of gender in Star Trek but doesn't say anything about sexuality. Source 22 is a dead link that apparently led to a messageboard. Source 23 addresses the question of whether Kirk and Scott were gay, but it points out that there is no actual answer to the question. Source 24 is, at last, actually about sexuality in Star Trek (and specifically Q's sexual interest in Picard), but it is not a reliable source; it's a blog-like opinion piece by one author with no evidence of fact-checking. Sources 25 and 26 are about gay characters in Star Trek fanfiction. Source 27 is about the question of whether Seven of Nine would be outed as a lesbian on the show. (She was not.) Sources 28 and 29 are to a pressure group trying to cause the Star Trek writers to include sexuality as a theme in Star Trek, which rather supports the idea that sexuality isn't covered in the show.

  I'm sorry for writing such a very long analysis but it was the best way to demonstrate that (a) none of the reliable sources are about sexuality in Star Trek, and (b) there are no reliable sources about sexuality in Star Trek to be found.—S Marshall T/C 19:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination seems counter-factual as the article contains sources such as Sexuality and Sex-Role Stereotyping in Star Trek which clearly support the topic. And the rest just seems to be the argument to avoid of WP:WEDONTNEEDIT which is not policy. And the article still has reasonable scope for improvement per our editing policy. For example, the source Sex and Star Trek hasn't been mentioned yet. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a detailed analysis of the sources above. The article on "Sex and Star Trek" seems relevant, but the word "sex" is ambiguous: it can mean gender or sexuality. In this case it's about gender, and as any feminist will tell you, gender isn't the same subject as sexuality at all.—S Marshall T/C 00:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Both gender and sexuality have numerous shades of meaning. The meaning you seem to have in mind for gender is described by the OED "In mod. (esp. feminist) use, a euphemism for the sex of a human being, often intended to emphasize the social and cultural, as opposed to the biological, distinctions between the sexes.". Use of euphemism is deprecated by our manual of style and so we should avoid it. "Sexuality" seems fine in this context and corresponds to the usage of the sources. In any case, having to choose between words is not a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep—Notability requirements appear satisfied.—RJH (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Have you ever been to a SF con? Sex and Star Trek (or Star Wars) are frequent themes of panels. Writers make a living off of their "slash novels". The sources are now good enough to keep. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2010 (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.