Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bisexual people


 * 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep for both. Sandstein 06:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

List of bisexual people and List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is an indiscriminate list, contrary to WP:NOT. The list invites continuous addition of entries that violate WP:LIVING. The fact that these people are bisexual is not why they are notable. The list itself adds up to a major POV conflict. Some of this information is includable, as it is cited, but the place to do that is the persons entry, not such a list. Delete and salt.

I am also nominating the following related page because the same arguments and reasoning applies.

Jerry lavoie 02:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete with fire. Impossible to maintain; nearly impossible to verify; sure to become either impossibly large or remain completely arbitrary; serves no useful nor informative purpose. In short, Wikipedia is not a compendium of trivial listcruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Both Unmaintainable and is pushing WP:LIVING. Has no real point from a research perspective.--Dacium 03:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Indeed, impossible to maintain. I tried to remove some really bad sources from List of bisexual people but it's just too big and badly sourced. Also per WP:BLP Garion96 (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed to Keep, I am convinced, this list List of bisexual people does need some serious cleanup and reliable sourcing though. The verify tag has been on the article already for over 6 months. Garion96 (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. You succeded in removing those entries, which were indeed terribly badly sourced. The other entries seem to be based on fairly sound references (usually a report of the person in question "coming out"). WjBscribe 03:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete even though I have added Ted Haggard and others to this. The fact that these people are bisexual is not why they are notable.  Either that, or rename as canonical gay list DavidYork71
 * Keep. The lists are works in progress but please check out List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E to see what these lists should look like once reasonably complete and properly sourced and formatted. There have been recent attempts to force compliance with WP:BLP and most of the entries are sourced. I have removed unsourced entries for some time and was about to turn to removing NNDB sourced entries along with others backed by sources that fail RS. Gay, lesbian and bisexual people who are notable in various fields are important in terms of social studies. These lists also allow brief information about their nationality and occupation that Category:LGBT people cannot provide. The list is maintained and the inclusion category is clearly expressed as: "This is a partial list of confirmed famous people who were or are gay, lesbian or bisexual. Famous people who are simply rumored to be gay, lesbian or bisexual, are not listed." WjBscribe 03:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sourcing is not the problem I have with the articles, per se. Although the articles invite unsourced material, and would require continuous policing.  My real problem is the fact that as a collection of names, the list itself is non-notable.  whether certain notable people are LGBT or not may be notable for certain people, aI agree... but this article creates a pro (or con) POV slant... and does not by itself provide encyclopedia context.... what next? List of right-handed people?  List of people who like turnips?  People who......   the list could go on.  But not appropriate for wikipedia.  Jerry lavoie 03:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can't tell whether its a pro or con slant, there probably isn't a POV slant at all. The fact that people are gay, lesbian or bisexual is far more significant than that they like turnips. It would be great if we can say sexuality is no big deal. But actually it is. The fact that people come out as gay etc. is a clearly notable fact about them and worthy of being catalogued in an encyclopedia. The examples you cite in comparisson are clearly trivia, this list is not. WjBscribe 04:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I could not disagree with you more. Every time an interviewer asks a celebrity if they are gay, I cringe.... because I actually do not want to know such a personal detail about somebody.  If I can live my whole life without needing to catalog all the gay people in the world, why can't everyone?  If the Rosie O'Donnell article and the Ellen Degeneres article say that they are lesbians, based on obvious tons of citable reliable sources, I have no problem with it... but what encyclopedic need does a person have who says "I wonder who all the gays are in the world?" Jerry lavoie 04:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt Article subject is by nature far too indiscriminate. List of straight people is not specific/notable enough for an article; I don't see why this case is different.  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. &mdash;DavidHOzAu 04:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of people are straight, making this utterly non-notable. The same reasoning explains why List of left-handed people exists but List of right-handed people does not. Similarly there is no need to have a list people with the normal number of fingers, but there is a list of List of polydactyl people. The number of notable people who have verifiably come out as gay, lesbian or bisexual remains relatively low- which is why in my opinion this list is maintainable and needed. WjBscribe 04:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "the vast majority of people are straight" Hint: see kinsey scale Jerry lavoie 04:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Then make that "the vast majority of people are assumed to be straight - making this list even more necessary. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I can't believe we're even having this discussion! Are you going to delete List of African Americans next?  Whether Jerry wants to think about it or not, people who are LGBT want and need to know about famous LGBT people - and people who aren't LGBT are interested, too. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  04:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * aside from inciting an emotional response and inflaming this discussion, what possible purpose could the African American statement above serve? This discussion is not about race, national heritage, or turnip-liking.  It is about an indicscriminate list.  IF (capitalized on purpose) LGBT people need to know other LGBT people, they do not necessarily need to get that information from wikipedia.  Wikipedia inclusion policies are about the encyclopedic content of the articles, not about fulfilling needs of selected groups of readers.  If the vast majority of people are to be presumed to be straight as you said, then we can presume that the vast majority of readers will not have the need you described to find this list here.Jerry lavoie 04:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry - this issue is emotionally laden for me - I admit. But the purpose of "throwing the race card" is valid.  If having a list of African Americans is encyclopedic, then so is a list of LGBT folks. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  04:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your point is well taken. Bbagot 20:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with SatyrTN, you can't have List of African-Americans but not List of LGBT people. These attributes might be viewed as irrelevant to some people, but historically sexuality and race have been very important attributes.  If it's important enough for history, why not for  wikipedia? Cedlaod 04:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is an inappropriate inflammatory argument (See Race card). Jerry lavoie 05:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Large ≠ indiscriminate. You might want to take a closer look at WP:NOT. --N Shar 04:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WJBscribe. And for the example (A-E) you've given, can I just say ... WOW!!!  Now that is a good list!  As for the criticisms raised, Zeus almighty!  Lists belong on WP (see WP:LIST).  In fact, WP allows for a distinct category "Lists of people by ...".  Grouping people by sexual orientation is not the same as grouping them by their attitudes on turnips.  Whether we like it or not, being a member of a sexual minority has impacted (and still continues to impact) the lives of such individuals--it is not a "non-defining or trivial characteristic".  As for the charge of being indiscriminate, please have a look once more at WP:NOT. -- Black Falcon 04:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep both Per Black Falcon. And I really don't think this list Offends anyone.Corporal Punishment 05:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If there are poorly sourced entries for living people (and there most likely are), these can be immediately purged under WP:BLP, but I see nothing wrong with the basic concept of these lists. This is a legitimate academic and cultural topic Bwithh Join Up! See the World! 05:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Uh, why LBG but not T on these lists? Bwithh Join Up! See the World! 05:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See List of transgendered people (though it seems to be in a shocking state). There doesn't seem much point including those in lists that are already very long. WjBscribe 05:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. But where's John Amaechi? Seriously, the maintainability concern raised by several people above is valid, as more people are willing to openly identify as L, G, or B. It may be impossible to include everyone who fits the criteria. Also, the sourcing for these lists has to be as stringent as possible. But I think the list serves a useful research purpose, and its format allows it to include information that a category can't. (And hopefully no one disputes that the various categories about sexual orientation are useful...) I'm not sure, however, that there's value in maintaining a List of bisexual people separate from the other lists; it might be better to merge that one. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's no question that these lists need work.  The list of bisexual people has been very bad for a long time, and even the much-improved List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E still cites self-published websites.  However, to those arguing that this is trivial:  if universities start offering degrees in the study of people who like turnips, then yes, we certainly should have a list of brassicarapaphiles.  Personal lack of interest in the subject is no more relevant than any other IDONTLIKEIT argument.  &mdash;Cel  ithemis  05:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. While I think most lists on Wikipedia are silly, these lists are no sillier than most, and less silly than others. Until Wikipedia policy determines that all lists should be scrapped, these should stay. Great Keep arguments, by the way, and not much of a case made for deletion, besides, "I just really don't like it". Jeffpw 05:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Where do you read the I don't like it arguments?? Garion96 (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is going to be unwieldy as hell, but there are certainly people to maintain it.  Though, I'm not sure about the list of LGB people - isn't that covered in the separate lists, or...? --Dennisthe2 06:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ....remodeled sig. --Dennisthe2 06:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm appending an ...and rename to my vote. The list title implies it's kind of general - everyone who's gay/bi/les/whatever.  Can we put something a little more specific in the title, perhaps? --Dennisthe2 20:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, it is everyone who is gay, bisexual or lesbian. What exactly is too general about List of lesbian, gay or bisexual people? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you mean adding a word like "important" or "notable" before people, concensus is against this e.g. List of tall people. The criteria for inclusion is within the article and only those who are notable should be listed, but adding this element to the title is usually disapproved of... WjBscribe 20:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. Thanks for the clarification. --Dennisthe2 21:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep the list is quite discriminate and just because it might result in vandalism and edit warring is not a reason to delete the article. Ever article is a target for vandalism - hell one of the most vandalized articles I've seen is Antartica, which isn't exactly a controversial subject. The claims are quite easy to verify, especially if the person is openly homo/bi-sexual.
 * As for being "unencylopedic" I'll just repeat what I said on a previous comment:
 * The thing is, this isn't really an article, it's an list. As such it serves more as an index to articles, so it doesn't have to be encyclopedic in the same sense as pages about specific people linked to on this list do. See WP:LISTS for specifics on what type of lists are appropriate. This list fits under all three purposes - information (people searching for a list of famous bisexuals for whatever reason), navigation (as I said before, it's an index/table of contents to these articles), development (the LGBT project is quite active and this is certainly helpful for them).
 * Koweja 07:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Question: What exactly is "indiscriminate" about these lists? They have very clear criteria of entry. Obviously anyone's inclusion on the lists needs to be cited. But as long as that is done (and this is not difficult to enforce), I fail to see how this is any more indiscriminate than any of the lists of Jews, for example. — coe l acan t a lk  — 07:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, since my question was never answered. — coe l acan t a lk  — 18:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete A persons sexuality is almost never the reason they are notable. I can't imagine List of Heterosexual People would last five minutes on Wikipedia, this almost seems like Wiki:Point to me, if I'm honest. Jcuk 08:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I am fed up with these lists. The set of people eligible for inclusion in an encyclopedic list should be defined by some notable trait. The set of people eligible for inclusion here is potentially undefined and also based on a non-notable trait. I could see that a list of Popes or platinum-selling musicians might be encyclopedic because the set of people listed would be manageable. This list is completely unmanageable. And I like many others am personally uncomfortable with classifying people according to their sexuality, because I think people should be allowed to keep their sexuality a private matter if they want to. Allon Fambrizzi 08:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
 * This is not a list of every bisexual person in the world nor is it intended to be. It is list of people who are bisexual and notable.  According to WP:LIST, lists should include notable persons.  So, notability is already a criterion.  Moreoever, being a member of a sexual minority is a defining trait.  Lastly, regarding the privacy issue, this list only includes people who are openly bisexual.  -- Black Falcon 18:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I realize that the number of people who may appear here is limited by notability criteria. I still think that a real encyclopedia would not have open-ended lists like this. Allon Fambrizzi 15:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi


 * KEEP People want to know about homo/bisexual famous people, and they aren't necessarily gay either. That's why the GLBTQ encyclopedia exists. Per Koweja, this meets every requirement on WP:LIST, is not frivolous, and as mentioned previously, minority groups have lists, that's why there are lists of people by religion, occupation, and yes, sexuality, people are interested in reading these and it is our duty as an encyclopedia to produce this information that they seek. OK, so the bisexual list contains unsourced entries - is it our fault that wants everyone in the world to be bisexual? We keep removing them, she keeps putting them back. WP:LGBT has been working on making these lists fully comprehensive and sourced - delete these articles and you delete weeks (cumulatively) of our work to make these lists presentable. They are certainly not indiscriminate, we have developed guidelines within the project to define the criteria by which a person may be placed on the list.  I have been tardy on the conversion to tables - if these lists are kept, I will ensure they all reach the same standard as A-E within this month.
 * To address Allon's point above, if public figures wish to keep their sexuality a secret, then they can and they aren't on the list. But if we have non-trivial, reliable sources about it, then they go on. Sexuality is no diffferent from any other part of them - if it is notable, it goes into Wikipedia, and that's policy.
 * To sum up, I ask that these lists be kept because they are notable, within policy, and with a body of people willing to maintain them. We just haven't got them looking at their best yet because we've been busy. This AfD tells me that I need to shove this to the top of my priority list and I will do so if these lists are kept. And to all thos epeople who say that such a list is unverifiable and impossible to maintain, see List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment, why actually is there a seperate list for bisexual people? Since they are also included in the other list. If keep, would it make sense to merge both lists or to remove bisexual people from the other list? Garion96 (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Because bisexuality is a separate sexuality from homosexuality, so it deserves its own list for people who want to look up bisexual people: however, when people look up the list of GLB people they're more looking for "not straight" people rather than just gay people. So the distinction's there if people want it, but the GLB list is the main one people look for. That's how I see it anyway. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sort of makes sense. But I still prefer either 2 lists, one bisexual, the other gay&lesbian. Or all in one list. Makes it also much easier to mantain. The way it is now List of bisexual people is basically double info. Garion96 (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but if you see it like that then List of LGB people is simply double info of List of people by name. Why have any list of people in it? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I see it more as...for instance if list of politicians would als include all the people from the list of American politicians. Which is double. I also don't think strongly about it, it would just be easier to maintain, considering the vandal magnet (I assume both lists) are. Garion96 (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - as one of the people who has worked on this list recently, please keep this. This is hardly an unworthy list, while yes, sometimes sexuality doesn't matter in the lives of people, for many it does (see Paul Cadmus, Tom of Finland and Natalie Clifford Barney.). There is a movement with this list towards making sure that every entry is cited with reliable references and this is on many watchlists to make sure that extraneous and uncited entries are removed. To tell you a little story, when I was just coming out of the closet myself, seeing a similar list (Wikipedia didn't yet exist), helped me adjust to being gay. To be able to see this list gave me something to feel good about: to know that I was in the company of many great men and women. As a gay man, yes this list is important to me, but it's also important information; hardly indescriminate. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The sexuality of a person considered otherwise famous is, for the most part, trivial information. It's not really something which should be handled via a list like this due to the sheer size of the list which could require massive change at any time. For example, Anne Heche was for a while Gay, then she decided she was Bi, now (IIRC) she's decided she's Straight. So will the list contain people who are LGBT at the moment (which would require DAILY changes of many different entries on the list), or will it include everyone who was once LGBT (which could lead to WP:LIVING violations if the person now objects to the term)?


 * While the comparison to left handed people may be correct in terms of the scale of the list, the scope of what is required to maintain the list is entirely different. Someone cannot one day reveal that while they have been pretending to be right handed for years, they actually favor their left. Likewise, switching from right or left handed to ambidexterity requires months of training. Statistically, someone who is left-handed today is going to be left-handed in ten years. The same is not true of a person's sexuality. Cheers, Lankybugger 15:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, we do have a List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/No longer identified list, so she could go there. Not a problem. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep In looking at List of gay, lesbian, or bisexual people I find the article to be informative, scholarly, and not pushing a POV. Obviously a great deal of time and effort went into its tabulation.  I wish that more articles could maintain the same level of excellence. Bbagot 20:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Despite difficulties in maintaining such a list, I believe it is a valuable addition. A brief scan shows me almost everyone on the current list is notable enough to have their own article. My reservations are WP:Verify and reliable sources. I would prefer at least two reliable sources for each listing because, despite what people may say, there is still a widespread stigma attached to these labels. The list provides proof against LGB invisibility and massive evidence of their various contributions.  Pig manTalk to me 20:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment (nominator) What does this list do that a category would not do? Jerry lavoie 22:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That question is I think fairly easily answered. Take a look at List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E. The list lets people know the occupation and date of birth/death of the person listed before they visit the article. The usual reasons to have a list as well as (or instead of) a category is to provide brief info about each entry. That reasoning seems to apply here. Also its a lot quicker to check if an entry in a list is properly sourced per WP:BLP than it is with a category. WjBscribe 22:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This list is very well written, and worth including in Wikipedia as a list of people from a minority group. — Mi ra   00:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per SatyrTN. --Zelse81 01:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Most of these people are famous people who happen to be G/L/B. If it's truly necessary, I'd guess there's already a category for them. Very few of these people are famous because they are G/L/B. That's what takes this from being encyclopaedic to just being a method of grouping semi-trivially. GassyGuy 01:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * keep It is alright to be different. It is alright to recognize why we are not all similar human beings... Watchsmart 02:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would say that we are all similar human beings even though there is variation among us. Regardless, what does that have to do with the article? GassyGuy 02:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Some editors here think that being gay is not a notable trait. I think it is.  That's all I mean.   I feel that individuals are fundamentally different from each other, but I guess that doesn't really matter here.  (Forgive me for being pithy in my original post...) Watchsmart 02:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people per above. Precident has argued that these types of lists are valid, including the most indiscriminate list on Wikipedia: List of people by name. However, Merge/Redirect List of bisexual people as it is redundant with the first article. Resolute 03:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment (by nominator). Thanks Dev920 for what I consider to be the only lucid and productive argument here for keep.  Based on your statement "if these lists are kept, I will ensure they all reach the same standard as A-E within this month."  I would be willing to concede and withdraw my nom, and give you a chance to do so.  As long as it is indeed true that an active wikiproject agrees to routinely police the articles to keep them up to the communities expected standards. Jerry lavoie 05:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I will get to work. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This list needs a lot of work, but given how it should look when it's cleaned up, I think it's necssary and encyclopedic. Dev920 has been working like a dog, with myself and a few others chipping in, and the state of the list is gradually improving. Openly LGBT people are a minority, and bisexual people a minority within a minority. To suggest that non-heterosexual orientation is of no consequence amounts to ignoring the contents of every article in Category:LGBT, first and foremost the concept of coming out. This needs to be a list more than a category because sourcing is such an important aspect of this (per WP:LIVING) and because elaboration is needed. While there have been arguments about who should be included in the list (see talk page) I still think this list can and should be on par with Wikipedia's list standards. Don't give up on it yet. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 11:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by nom As a deal has been struck by prominent parties on each side of this debate to correct the major concers with these articles and still keep them, I request for an admin to close this debate as Keep per agreement. To make this easier for a closing admin, I request that nobody else add a comment below this line, unless you do not agree with that outcome.  If this remains the final comment, an admin could close this under WP:SNOW, with reasoning that both parties have agreed to keep it, so delete outcome does not have snowballs chance.  Let's allow a peaceful closure of this debate and celebrate collaboration.  Jerry lavoie 16:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Jerry, a number of users have expressed delete opinions in this AfD. Much as I might want it to be, the mere fact of your nom being withdrawn does not mean this AfD can be closed early. You cannot speak for everyone of those users (who might not be agreeable to the lists surviving in any form). Nor are those who have expressed keep opinions bound by what Dev920 has said. I think this AfD must now run its course. WjBscribe 18:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enoigh I tried. Jerry lavoie 18:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's also preferable to let the AFD run its full course because speedy keep does not establish as much evidence of consensus as does a five day AFD closed as keep. — coe l acan t a lk  — 18:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, although it does appear to be a page that may require sprotection now and again. Kukini 00:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, The list is just as deserving of a place on Wikipedia as any of the other relevants lists such as the lists of African-Americans, Irish-Americans, Left-handed individuals, etc. The requirement was that these individuals are already notable. I believe the list does merit inclusion. Face it, anyone notable identifying as GLBT (like it ot not) makes news. It is obviously of interest to someone if it is till newsworthy. ExRat 11:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Once again some people want to censor all information related to the glb community -- who's next, the Jews? African Americans? Catholics? Latinos? Democrats? WP should seriously consider implementing an anti-bigotry policy and ban violators. Carlossuarez46 20:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah right, have you actually read the comments of the people who prefer deletion? Garion96 (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I have, and let's quote from a few: "Delete and salt", how should we interpret "delete and salt" repeatedly used above? is this an allusion to Sodom and Gomorrah perhaps -- words not chosen at random -- or is it an allusion to Rome's treatment of Carthage after years of bitter warfare? In either instance, it's abusive. Then there's the "Delete with fire", when burning of homosexuals was common. Would anyone seriously entertain analogous phraseology like "lynch this article" if used in relation to an African American subject or "gas and burn this article" when used in relation to a Jewish subject. Then there's a few who write from their hearts: "I like many others am personally uncomfortable with classifying people according to their sexuality, because I think people should be allowed to keep their sexuality a private matter if they want to" Gosh, notable people should be able to keep everything else private too, right? Let's delete all private things, even if they've can be found in a verifiably public source, like all that watergate stuff from Nixon's biography, after all I'm sure he would have prefered to keep that a private matter too. Hoowey. Carlossuarez46 20:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I can understand your point, but I also think you see too much in comments used all the time on AFD. Garion96 (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yeah, right. How about this one from the person who proposed the deletion: "Every time an interviewer asks a celebrity if they are gay, I cringe.... because I actually do not want to know such a personal detail about somebody." That doesn't sound just slightly as though User:Jerry lavoie wants the list gone for . . . personal reasons? ExRat 20:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't sound like that at all to me. Besides, Jerry lavoie (the nominator) already changed his mind. Garion96 (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You misinterpret my words, ExRat, try a small dose of WP:AGF, it actually tastes good. My point was that when interviewers ask Clay Aiken over and over again if je is gay, after he has definitively stated he is not... I feel bad for him.  The same thing happened to Ricky Martin.  Not that being gay is bad... being constantly asked about it in public after clearly stating you don't want to be, is humiliating.  My worry about these lists is that wikipedia could perpetuate such humiliation by providing such a visible and clearly abused vandal target.  As I stated above, since the LGBT wikiproject pledges to patrol these articles, my concern is abated.  Jerry lavoie 02:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I know there are people who say that lists and categories can exist side-by-side, but I really feel that this is better handled with a category rather than trying to list potentially thousands of people, inviting the addition of NN names as well as the inevitable "let's play a joke on my friend and list him as gay" nonsense. 23skidoo 22:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This page is useful to all people who are interested in the personal life of celebrities, as there were many gay and lesbian actors who were forced to keep their sexuality a secret and lead double lives. Onefortyone 15:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep There is an unpleasant undertone of homophobia in the way this list is treated - as if bisexuality were something odd or 'tabloidy' or wrong. Many younger people can feel less alone knowing that bisexuality in many different degrees is something so many successful people share. Soane 16:53, 20 February 2007 (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.