Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first openly LGBT politicians in the United States


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) YorkshireLad ✿  (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

List of first openly LGBT politicians in the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I am wholly pro-LGBTQ rights and pro-pride, but this article may qualify for deletion for having way too many violations of Biographies of living persons policy, specifically WP:GRAPEVINE, whereby there are large swaths of content in the article stating that living persons are homosexual, without proper verification stating so. There are several potential repercussions about this problem: in general, it is unencyclopedic, it goes against BLP policy, and this has the potential to "out" living persons that may not necessarily want to be outed. Needs a community discussion to evaluate the merits of deletion versus leaving this BLP mess in place. Additionally, verification concerns were recently brought up by another user on the article's talk page here. North America1000 11:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Just clicking on a number of articles in the list I am not seeing any examples of BLP violations as their respective articles are properly sourced and verified. Any claims that can not be properly sourced or verified can be removed but I don't understand why that amounts to the deletion of this very important list, we do not delete articles because they have the potential to include BLP violations. All it takes is simply gathering the sources from the articles and moving them over to this list. JayJayWhat did I do?  16:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per . This is a case for vigilance, not deletion. If the risk of unintentionally or falsely outing people were grounds to delete an article, then we couldn't have any BLPs in the first place. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and work to provide better sourcing. --Enos733 (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep not nearly enough issues for WP:TNT to apply. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 19:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a massive example of POV-pushing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How is it POV-pushing? It is a notable list and other countries have similar lists. Jay<b style="color:#0000FF">Jay</b><sup style="color:black">What did I do? 21:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, "openly" is part of the criteria so outing is by definition precluded here, as well as by our usual requirements for RS. All else is a matter for normal editing and policing, and outside of WP:SUSCEPTIBLE no cogent argument against having the list has been put forth. postdlf (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and work to add more references per WP:RS. The fact that an article is lacking references is a surmountable problem; it's therefore an argument that should be avoided in deletion discussions per Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Lincolnite (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see that the issues are insurmountable, and I'm notorious for invoking TNT. It's a perfectly good, limited list. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Upon further consideration and the input here, nomination withdrawn. North America1000 11:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.