Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 04:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

List of LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Following a discussion at WP:BLP/N, the page was tagged for speedy deletion. I do not feel the page qualifies for speedy, so am listing it for discussion instead. Issues brought up at the include lack of sources and quality of sources. WP:BLP of course requires high-quality sourcing for contentious information about living people. On the other hand, if the page can be cleaned up to meet standards it should not be deleted. Count me as neutral. (talk) 05:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see the merit at the very least in very substantial revision. Much of the article is unsourced (despite the author's best efforts).  I do not doubt that a lot of work has gone into the page, but I wonder whether it is either useful or encylopaedic in particular to list an MP as "bisexual" unless he or she has specifically identified themselves as such.  There are no transgender / transexual politicians listed (as far as I can see) and so the label LGBT is particularly meaningless here.  It might serve some purpose as an article if it were to list MPs who have either identified themselves as gay or lesbian or who as a result of sourced historical record can be defined as such.Informed Owl (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Informed Owl
 * I would like to echo Informed Owl's comments. In fact, I think that it is strongly advisable that any unsourced content be removed from the article post haste. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This list serves a very important function in motivating and mobilising members of the LGBT community to run for office in a country where until very recently this has been a major taboo. It provides an excellent resource of inspirational figures who have held office in the past and reinforces impressions that election to Parliament is not impossible for members of the LGBT community. An accurate page is indeed of utmost importance, but it would be a great shame to lose this reference instead of simply maintaining it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.127.65 (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - this list duplicates the function of categories. Because of the eyes on the actual article of the subject, the categories will always be under observation and thus will be more accurately maintained. This list violates our rules requiring self-identification for religious, political and sexual orientation. There should never be a listing of a "not out" sexual orientation of a living person. Yworo (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Refocus to remove/dissuade BLP violations (eg by renaming List of "out" LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom or Delistify (turn into a Category) or Merge into a putative History of LGBT rights in United Kingdom or similar. Gay politicians are part of that story. Rd232 talk 14:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - List has all the uncited and unwatched problems as usually associated with such articles, little to no value, convert to a category (if there is not already one) where the details are supported in the subjects article. If the list is not deleted after seven days I suggest the removal of all uncited claims to the talkpage.Off2riorob (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep remove all unsourced material however. This clearly serves a purpose different than a category as it provides summary information about each person.  But it all must be sourced either in this article or (less ideally) in the article on the person.  I'm especially worried about any living person being listed as not being "out" and would want amazingly good sources for such a claim. Hobit (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Added one source. I choose to just tack one of the many next to "Gay" rather than using the same one for each column of the same person. Acceptable? Hobit (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Yworo and Off2riorob. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep provided someone has the time to remove all the unsourced material. Some of this material is encyclopaedic, but the rest is a lawsuit waiting to happen. If no-one has the time to do this, then delete because, as it stands, the BLP violations outweigh the factual material. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:BLP issues galore in this largely unsourced article. Most of this information is potentially libelous and should be removed immediately until reliable sourcing is established. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete there is an aura of indecency and disrespect inherent to this list. It should be salted...Modernist (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete LGBT or not is only a notable issue in a notable person's biography page - not in itself. The people on this list are notable for being politicians, not their sexuality. Therefore this list have no purpose or inherent notability and should be deleted. isfutile:P (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Homosexuality was only decriminalised in 1967; politicians being "out" is still a notable phenomenon. A list is not a good way to deal with that issue, but simple deletion is wasteful of the parts of this which are well-sourced. Rd232 talk 19:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is to be kept it needs to be impeccably sourced due to the BLP issues involved. Other than that, I can see it as a list, as a category, or deleted entirely due to potential BLP problems. Jclemens (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.Lionel (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nom was neutral, could you clarify? Hobit (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Is there a reliable secondary source with an analysis of the significance of LGBT issues to politicians from the United Kingdom? If not, why should Wikipedia declare that it is notable that X is gay? The list is not appropriate here unless multiple secondary sources have considered that those politicians who are LGBT is worthy of comment. Further, the list is a WP:BLP problem because it should not be an editor who chooses to record what is believed to be the sexual preference of some politician. Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The 2010 David Laws affair demonstrates that being openly gay is still an issue even today. Am I the only one who thinks this is a topic worth covering in an encyclopedia? For instance, On the fringe: gays and lesbians in politics has an entire chapter on Chris Smith, and says "A member of Parliament such as Chris Smith, who so clearly represents a cause simply by virtue of being openly gay..." page 78 (Cornell University Press). From 1977 (34%) to 1994 (38%) a substantial number of voters would still hold it against an MP if he was gay. Or, going back slightly, the issue of the accusations of homosexuality against James I page 9 are part of the same topic. I agree a list is not the way to handle the topic, but no-one seems interested in talking about the topic - which this list could contribute to. Rd232 talk 10:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Peoples individual sexuality is not an issue at all, Laws had his own personal reason to not want to tell people his sexual preferences, those individual personal reasons are not part of the gay resistance history, you are talking about a homosexual history article not a list of the sexual preferences of some outed, rumoured, some uncited and some self declared politicians. Off2riorob (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I had proposed moving the list to "List of "out" ..." Please address my overall argument - I'm clearly not defending a list of uncited and rumoured claims, which I had no part in creating. Rd232 talk 10:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, a rename, its better, politicians that have stated a preference for homosexual relationships. Personally I don't support that as encyclopedic but this is wikipedia(2). I don't know about the bigger picture as regards, the consequences and responses to self declared homosexual sexual preference in various fields of employment and sport and such like and perhaps this AFD is not the correct place for that discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, it is an interesting topic and there are further aspects (see for example) but, for me, this list is absolutely not an appropriate way to deal with the matter. If people put in the effort there could be a featured article. I think that if the severe pruning continues the list could become within policy and guidelines and so should not be deleted. However, I shall not cry if it simply gets deleted anyway. Thincat (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete There should be an prose article about LGBT politians within the UK but this list serves no useful purpose and could be better managed via categories. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Yworo, Off2riorob, and Cameron Scott. The subject is interesting and notable, but would be better covered by an appropriate category and an article on GLBT politicians in the United Kingdom or some such - focus of the latter should be on providing history and big picture rather than trying to list every last one. --GenericBob (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Comment If page stays, consider aligning title with content - the title says "politicians" but the list criteria includes some Lords who may not have been politically active, and excludes noteworthy candidates who didn't get elected. --GenericBob (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per GenericBob's rationale. An article on this topic would be interesting, and a category can be used for those politicians who identity as gay, etc., as established by reliable sources in their individual articles, but there is no need for a list. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for some of the reasons above. Although i must say its rather ironic we are having this debate when about an hour ago another British MP just outed themselves lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep (Page Creator)
 * I felt that a page that listed the LGBT politicians with some context was more useful and of greater interest than merely an alphabetical list. This page (as opposed to the category page) tells you when the people were in office (important in terms of changing values), which party they are in (relevant in terms of assessing which parties are most accepting to LGBT MPs) which house they served in, what legal relationships they are/were in (of interest to many including the media and relevant to their sexuality) and other notes such as being the first gay MP or being PM. A simple category cannot present this information in one place. If you're doing a project on LGBT politicians or UK attitudes to LGBT people etc. a clear list of who did what, when they served, which party they were with etc. is surely very useful.
 * I can very much understand the need for careful sourcing, and have just gone through and readded unsourced people, with sources. I am too uncomfortable with the idea that the list will become a place to put the latest rumoured gay historical figure on. I intended it to have a more contempory relevance. I am happy to have currently unsourced people removed, I'd be willing to put in the work to find sources for those legitimate members who are removed.
 * Here btw is a set of references showing that "multiple secondary sources have considered that those politicians who are LGBT is worthy of comment", also disputing that "this list serves no useful purpose" and that "LGBT or not is only a notable issue in a notable person's biography page - not in itself. The people on this list are notable for being politicians, not their sexuality. Therefore this list have no purpose or inherent notability and should be deleted":
 * Politican party websites (Conservatives) (Labour), Public Interest in whether MPs are gay , List of powerful LGBTs (UKBlackout.com) (PinkNews) , 'Newsworthy 'comings out' (Simon Hughes) (Clive Betts, The Sun) (Alan Duncan, Guardian) (Crispin Blunt, BBC) (David Borrow) (Gordon Marsden, The Bury Times) (Gregory Barker, The Mirror) (David Laws, Newstatesman)
 * I could go on. Surely this shows that the media consider whether and which MPs are LGBT is worthy of comment. I might add that most of these links were already on the List page.
 * As page creator and major content provider obviously I feel strongly about the page's existence but I genuinely feel that wikipedia is an appropriate space for it as specified above and as I myself have often wanted such a source of information. Obviously adding people to the list needs to be done with care with regard to Wikipedia BLP Policy. I would however be interested in seeing whether the list information could be but into some sort of History page, but I think even on such a page this sort of list would have a place.Philoyonder (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. AFD is not WP:CLEANUP.  If the list lacks sources, either add sources or delete unsourced items from it.  That simple act should address any WP:BLP concerns. The people listed are all notable and in the public eye, so BLP1E doesn't apply. JulesH (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per JulesH. Malick78 (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDIR. We don't have arbitrary cross-categorizations, and I honestly don't think that someone's sexuality is of any relation political offices held. Claritas § 11:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally coverage in RSes about the overlap is the evidence we look for when figuring out if it is an arbitrary cross-categorization. Philoyonder supplied a number of sources which show quite significant coverage.  And ignoring the UK part, the number of sources total is massive (we in the states seem obsessed some days).  I will say however this is the best, and maybe only, policy-based argument I've seen for deletion in this discussion... Hobit (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2010 (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.