Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality in Star Trek
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
— User:Becksguy, 16:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:DP (Wikipedia:Deletion policy)