Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay, lesbian or 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 of the debate was KEEP. Owen&times; &#9742;  23:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people
WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Another example of what should be a Category and not an Article. Also the list is hardly maintainable and involves lots of speculation. Sure, have an article about outing gay people and the controversy that surrounds that, could be interesting, but a list like this is hardly encyclopedic Bob 20:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep If you have a list of Famous African-Decendend people who where born that way then that eleminates the A listing of blue-eyed people, after all, we were born that way also." comment.
 * Keep. The nominator is not familiar with the article which is carefully maintained. It is not "an indiscriminate collection" and does not rely on speculation. Lists have a place in encyclopedias. -Willmcw 20:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; appears encyclopedic; I'm voting to keep pending the outcome of Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. &mdash; RJH 23:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Another thinly-veiled attack on the homosexual identity.→ → R Young  {yak ł talk } 00:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Only a thin-skinned person would even think that. --Bob 17:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Categorify/Delete too general to be useful IMHO. Borisblue 01:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but limit to 20th- and 21st-century figures. -Acjelen 01:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for many reasons. Firstly, the second point under What Wikipedia is not (the above basis for this deletion vote) states that "[...] there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic." Secondly, this article is not "hardly maintainable", and does, in fact, list information about when and where some people on the list came out publicly; if not, it encourages their biographic articles to do so. Thirdly, this article isn't "outing gay people"; it has been designed to ensure that a distinction is made between those confirmed as gay and those otherwise debated to be, with each section beginning with a proper explanation. -- Saaga 05:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This appears to be a carefully maintained article full of useful information. And it is far more effective and useful as a list, rather than as a category.  Skeezix1000 12:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep though I discovered this was in afd because I need to delete/merge/undelete the entire history... Anyway there is a lot of work that has gone into this list, and it's very useful. -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 17:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a useful encyclopedic list that has strong research value and has been well and carefully maintained. Jliberty 04:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and *Categorify or Listify :) this is not an article. There is no need to delete it however. Just make it a list or a category. Sethie 07:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP. This list has been very meticulously picked over and examined for accuracy. It is indeed a useful counter-part to the main article.ExRat 10:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, as ExRat and others. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 02:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - unencyclopedic and overly politicized. Many of the entries are unsourced & it appears that they are being listed here to promote non-mainstream theories that historical figures were gay or lesbian. Rangerdude 05:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Interesting and useful. Voyager640 18:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If this is included, then why not an article on "A listing of blue-eyed people, after all, we were born that way also."


 * 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.