Deletion of Sexuality in Star Trek

Comment: major  and original research issues, amongst other problems
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: per .  This article is about a major theme in a major cultural artifact, per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY||WP:OUTCOMES)

Comment: I don't think I've ever seen Infinitely used as a qualifier for a AfD !vote.  Keep per other keep rationale. The article is basically notable and has references to establish that notability, however, it does need additional references. Lacking intrinsic notability is the one problem that can't be fixed (and that's not the case here), the rest (RS, COI, POV, etc), if they exist, can be dealt with by improving the article. I agree with Benjiboi that WP:AFD says that fixing or tagging is preferred to deletion for an article than be improved.  In |Deletion policy it also says as one of the reasons to delete: ''...content not verifiable in a reliable source...''.  It doesn't say unverified, meaning currently not verified, it says unverifiable, which means it can't be verified. Not the same thing at all. All this boils down to a couple of concepts:  AfD is not for cleanup, needs improvement != needs deletion, and deletion should be the last resort, not the first.  I might also point out that this article is a B class article in Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies|LGBT Studies, which means it's received project assessment
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DP)

Comment: Serious  and  problems.  Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of thing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: for now. The article seems to contain a lot of wishful thinking. It is rather long considering the amount of sourcing (shortening by 50% might be considered). The references ought to be formatted using . I'm not sure that everything included under External Links would pass 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:CITE||WP:EL)

Comment: Article needs help but who amongst us doesn't. Per fD if an article can be improved through regular editing it's not a good candidate for AfD. This article needs better writing and possibly some structure work but hardly a reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A)

Comment: per , , ,  as well as this article being out on the extreme end of ancruft|fancruft.  At the absolute very most this deserves two lines on the show's main page saying words to the effect of "some sexual encounters occur, they can be inter-species but are very rarely gay" although to be honest if each individual LGBT or quasi-LGBT sexual encounter in question is notable then it's going to get covered in the episode's article anyway
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NN||WP:NOR||WP:SYNTH||WP:NPOV||WP:F)