Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denial of lesbianism


 * 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   delete.  Sandstein  19:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Denial of lesbianism

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete pure WP:POV unsourced WP:OR Mayalld (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The article has sources and a potential to grow.--Old Bella (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep If the article doesn't flesh out much more you could probably make a case for merging it into an existing article, but I see no reason to delete it. The article is reasonably sourced (not WP:GA or anything, but still...) and appears to be about a legitimate topic.  Plasticup  T / C  14:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Even if the topic is valid, the article as currently written is WP:SYN at best. The references cited are celebrity gossip about supposed lesbians and denials by the women named. The Clinton "source" is also a case of WP:FRINGE, warming over long discredited rumors. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have removed several names from the article as unsourced WP:BLP infringements Mayalld (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and/or Delete the subject matter isn't notable on its own and can easily be covered under a number of different already existing sexuality articles. As written the main thrust of the article seems to be "accusatory" (even if the accusations have sources) which causes BLP concerns. An article entitled "Denial of lesbianism" would need to concentrate on the denials which this doesn't at the moment (due to the BLP stuff).Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete To me, this borders on patent nonesense. It's a made up term.  The article contains multiple obviously disprovable claims, beyond them, most of the content just makes no sense to me.  Why does there need to be an article on this? -Verdatum (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. Pinkkeith (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is sad that many individuals mentioned in the article have been deleted. I don't believe there should be such a stigma attached to lesbianism.  (I support its promotion and like the openness of Angelina Jolie, et al.)  Katherine Moennig and others feel ashamed and deny being lesbians.  The article was discussing the matters and not accusing (it isn't a crime in most places) anyone and it used to say "reports."  I was going to alter the word "allege" to something else too.--Old Bella (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply per the policy WP:Biographies of Living Persons any unverifiable claims regarding living persons must be removed immediately. If you don't like it, find and cite the nessisary sources and make a real article out of this. -Verdatum (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The existence of reports that people like Jenna Jameson Is NOT A Lesbian is verifiable. It didn't say that, for example, X is a lesbian in all cases unless there was a source.  It included reports of denials.--Old Bella (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete; this could be a subject on the Lesbian page, but not a page of its own.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 17:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete ill-sourced and of little consequence. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete In its current state, the article is too ill-defined to warrant support. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see this being any more a POV issue then Holocaust denial, Climate change denial, Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories or any of the numerous conspiracy theories on wikipedia. This also is not a made up term. There are a number of books and articles out there about this term within LGBT/Queer Studies. There are also other material the editor can draw upon other then gossip tabloids to define and explain the condition. --Pinkkeith (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is about people who deny the veracity of a rumour about themselves as individuals, not about people denying that lesbianism exists (which is what it would need to be about for your comparisons here to be relevant at all.) Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge what we can with closeted then delete. Tabercil (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * comment One who is "in the closet" isn't in denial. The person is not open about their sexual orientation, but don't deny who they are. --Pinkkeith (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, so Larry Craig isn't closeted? WillOakland (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is correct. --Pinkkeith (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well some of the various online dictionary definitions of "closeted" come back as "Not open about one's homosexuality." (Wiktionary), "Being so or engaging only in private; secret" (Dictionary.com) or "kept secret from others" (Cambridge Dictionary); so it's probably reasonable for the average person to assume that someone who is closeted about their homosexuality will attempt to keep it a secret and thus publicly deny it. That's why I proposed the merger - for the lay person, public denials of lesbianism typically follow from being closeted. But I stand corrected about the distinction. Tabercil (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - could use some additional neutral sourcing but it is not irredeemably POV nor is it OR. Otto4711 (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research, possibly libelous in some jurisdictions, inherently POV as it assumes that any woman who does (or rumored to have done) certain things short of total intimacy should identify as a lesbian. If it were retitled accurately it would be "Speculations of lesbianism" and deletion would clearly be justified. WillOakland (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would say merge, but I don't really even see anything worthy of merging here. Aleta  Sing 20:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Ouch!! I think this falls right under WP:BLP. The whole point is to spread rumors about Hillary Clinton, Queen Latifah, or anyone else to be added to the list, followed by, thank-you-very-much, a note that they denied the rumor.  What bullshit.  People who are straight do not want to be labelled as gay; and some people who are gay have reasons that they do not want to be identified as gay.  Either way, it's nobody's business but their own. Mandsford (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually many aren't bothered either way and some are quite pleased they are being talked about at all. And obvious sexuality issues are newsworthy but we can agree they need to rise to a notable level of inclusion. Banje boi  22:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Basically, this is a list of people who have denied being lesbians.  D C E dwards 1966  21:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete the subject matter isn't notable on its own. Beve (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge anything usable and delete. This would seem to go to the lesbian article but this seems to violate BLP as rumors and denials of rumors. I suppose if the denials reached a notable level then maybe. I would like to see a Denials of heterosexuality article - that could be fun! Banje boi  22:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment One user has accused me of adding "defamatory" stuff to this article. That user clearly believes lesbianism is negative and has deleted the list of people reported as lesbians with their denials.  Since it is controversial in some circle, then there is a need for an article to discuss the subject matter soberly.--Old Bella (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Further comments Now I find "The bias of compulsory heterosexuality, through which lesbian experience is perceived on a scale ranging from deviant to abhorrent, or simply rendered invisible" to be exactly true.--Old Bella (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh how poignant. Let's discuss the article, not ourselves.  Perhaps what we find defamatory is somebody making statements that another person is hiding a "secret".  It's not really fair to suggest that Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim, or that Hillary Clinton is secretly a lesbian, or that John McCain is secretly having an extramarital affair.  Mandsford (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete The article's references doesn't discuss the issue in any detail, except provide examples of people that are lesbian. There's no evidence that the concept meets WP:N. It seems that this article is gossip about people denying their sexuality. --Grrrlriot (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete while an article about "Lesbian self-denial" could probably be written, this isn't it - it's basically an article about denying that you're lesbian. Heck, I'm not lesbian (there I've denied it), do I get to be in this article? We can have a whole slew of articles about Denial of , and none are encyclopedic probably. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not only a train wreck of potential BLP violations (adding any name to this page is problematic), but the term itself is not encyclopedic. Anything that can be saved from this article (unlikely) can be added to Lesbian, Closeted or Gay-for-pay.  Horologium  (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I hate to !vote to delete an article due to current content, but this one is so bad right now I can't vote to keep. A good summary of academic work might well be interesting here.  But as it stands, this article is so far from what it could be, I'll just say "if it gets deleted, don't salt" Hobit (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete junk. I can't really say anything more because to me it's self-evident. JuJube (talk) 09:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - There's nothing meaningful to say about the topic itself. All there is is a list of people purported to be lesbians who say they aren't.  That's not a useful article.  --Alynna (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not sure there is any encyclopedic material to be had on the subject that wouldn't fit happily elsewhere. The page might well act as an incitement to editors to include poorly sourced claims about celebrities. --Simon Speed (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Lesbianism. This is a perfectly sensible and valid subject, but need not have its own article.--Whipmaster (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to lesbian. This is in no way a meaningful or notable social or cultural phenomenon in its own right. If a woman is a lesbian but publicly denies it, then that's already covered by the article closeted, and if a woman isn't a lesbian but is forced to deny rumours that she is, that's just called setting the record straight (no pun intended). And AIDS denialism isn't a valid "see also" topic, either; that article is about an organized movement denying the existence of HIV, not about individual people denying that they personally have it. Absolutely absurd and unencyclopedic topic for an independent article. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.