List of LGBT characters in The Simpsons: The vast majority of the characters listed here are very minor, usually one-off or gag characters with terrible sourcing consisting of other lists  ( one of which is the sole source for almost half of the minor characters ) or mere episode reviews that barely mention the characters, making most of this article fail WP:N and WP:GNG The characters that are major enough to talk about already have their own separate articles at Patty and Selma , Waylon Smithers , and Kang and Kodos , or them being LGBT could easily be described on List of recurring The Simpsons characters , which makes the remainder of this article entirely redundant.  I want to reiterate so I don’t have to say this again: I am not against noting lgbt characters in The Simpsons, but a list is redundant at best and fancruft at worst, and the only notable section, the lede, has already been copied to a more fitting page.  I am open to a compromise: rework this page to be something other than a list format and rename it accordingly (such as "LGBT representation in The Simpsons"), because it's obvious that the list format clearly does not work for this page.  Unnamed anon ( talk ) 01:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  This grouping is notable as already cited in the list, and note that per WP:NLIST Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable .   — siro χ o 03:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A lot of of the non-notable characters are one-offs or gag characters, like "Comic Book Gay" as a parody of Comic Book Guy.  Additionally, the contents that are independently notable already have pages at Patty and Selma , Waylon Smithers , and Kang and Kodos , making the majority of sources on this page more fitting for those pages instead, and also making this page very redundant.  Unnamed anon ( talk ) 04:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's generally fine for standalone lists as long as they roughly meet WP:NLIST — siro χ o 07:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - As stated above, the list is quite notable.  Besides the news refs, the fact this topic was covered in a peer-reviewed academic journal is noteworthy.  APK whisper in my ear 03:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The simple fact that there are lgbt characters or the actual characters themselves are notable?  Because, as I mentioned earlier, I had already copied the lede of the article to the influences and legacy section of the show’s page , which sufficiently covers the fact that there are lgbt characters.  The peer-reviewed academic journal can also simply be covered on the show’s page, not deserving of being split off in its own article that is otherwise filled with fancruft.  I should’t have to reiterate this; the coverage of lgbt representation is fine, but the actual list of characters is not notable in any way because most of these characters are one-offs or have their own pages which can talk about their sexuality.  Unnamed anon ( talk ) 04:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note - The nominator removed the lede and has removed links to the page from The Simpsons and Template:The Simpsons .  @ Unnamed anon : it seems you're very passionate about this, but can you please wait until this AFD has concluded before scrubbing the content?  Thank you.  APK whisper in my ear 06:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't actually remove it fully, as you can see in the top of this afd, I added the lede to the show’s page.  I additionally copied the text and sources from the lgbt characters page to the pages for Patty (and Selma), Smithers, and the Aliens, but I have not removed the text from the page they were originally on yet like I did with the lede per your suggestion.  I'm frustrated because both of the "keep" reasons have been faulty; both assumed I don't think the representation isn't notable, but it is, hence why the info was moved.  The problem is the page being a list at all; part of it redundant due to its subjects having their own pages, and most of the rest consisting of one-offs.  Unnamed anon ( talk ) 06:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nowhere did I say you thought representation isn't notable.  I referred to the list itself.  Let's just wait and see what others think about the page.  Take care.  APK whisper in my ear 07:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Seems odd to delete the lede, as every Wikipedia page should have a lede, and it's okay for content to be duplicated between two Wikipedia pages.  Enervation ( talk ) 07:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – The topic of LGBT representation in the Simpsons is notable as the subject of many sources.  The list of minor characters seems fine as well if they are included in reliable sources.  Enervation ( talk ) 07:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Enervation : Here's the giant problem about the minor characters: they are barely talked about in said "reliable" sources, which themselves are mostly lists themselves, furthering the redundancy of this article.  For example, this source is simply just another list, and it is the only source of the 7 out of 16 (nearly half!) of the minor character entries on the wikipedia list.  One source shouldn't compose of almost half of the sources in a section, how that would be considered acceptable in this disaster of a page is baffling.  This source for the first minor character is mostly about an entirely separate character, and is also just another list.  Other sources, such as this and this , are simple episode reviews that barely mention the character who uses it as a source.  The sourcing on this article is just terrible, and, aside from parts of it that belong on other pages, completely unsalvageable.  The topic of LGBT representation in the Simpsons is notable, sure, but belongs on the show’s page, not its own.  At the very least, I am open to a compromise: rework it into no longer being a list and (such as "LGBT representation in The Simpsons"), because the list format just does not work for this page, at all.  Unnamed anon ( talk ) 09:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Comics and animation , Sexuality and gender ,  and Lists .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but move I think it should be converted into an article called LGBT representation in The Simpsons .  Just having a list like this seems... random, but the overall topic is standalone notable.  Making it into an article would hopefully fix the redundancy issue noted in the AfD.  I should also note that LGBT representation in American adult animation , its ostensible companion/parent article, was boldly merged without any sort of consensus which may have caused some of the confusion shown here.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Unnamed anon : If you agree with this, perhaps it is best to withdraw the AfD entirely, and start a move discussion instead.  I think it's clear per WP:SNOW that outright deletion is not going to ever succeed here.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Zxcvbnm : I agree with starting a move discussion (and have started it), but I'm not withdrawing this AfD unless it's not allowed to have both running concurrently.  I still firmly believe that the contents of this article that are actually notable could comfortably fit onto the show's page and the pages for the three characters with articles.  Unnamed anon ( talk ) 17:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They can keep running at the same time, but frankly I don't see a path forward for the AfD.  It's almost certainly going to be a SNOW close.  I was suggesting due to that, but if you want it to keep going, it will.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Zx above.  Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Sergecross73 : Move as well or just keep?  Because as a list there was so much poorly sourced bloat I had to remove, and the article would at least be salvageable and not redundant if it was moved to LGBT representation in The Simpsons written in a prose format instead.  Unnamed anon ( talk ) 17:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm fine either way.  Whatever garners a stronger consensus.  Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but move per nom and ZX.  It is indeed a notable topic.  For WP:NLIST , it probably stretches a little, which is why under a different name it would work better.  However, even minor/guest characters for any show can have the impact necessary for outside their show.  I believe there is an Emmy category for guest appearances.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 18:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Notable topic, as others have pointed out, but a move might be in order.  ★Trekker ( talk ) 14:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Politics in The Simpsons#LGBT_issues .  Possibly split into its own prose (not list) article afterward (per move suggestions above).  There is something notable here, but it should not be covered in the listicle of trivia format.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per reasons stated already.  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 07:01, 17 July 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep