Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people (3rd nomination)


 * 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The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW / nomination withdrawn.  Sala Skan  18:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is going to be a controversial deletion. The reason why I want this to go is that it is unnecessarily stigmatising. What if one created a list of heterosexual people? I am 100% sure that it would get deleted as "nonsense". The article is informative, but this can be included in an article like "homosexuality debate". The list in the article is stupid, because it "brands" those people. Again, a list of straight people would get deleted. Why is this list still out there?  Sala Skan  13:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You find there is something stigmatising about being gay, do you? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. I just think that this list encourages stigmatising as there is no list of heterosexual people, and being gay is not really something "extraordinary" or "important".  Sala Skan  18:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * KEEP - I find the reasoning behind this AfD, that this list "brands people gay" quite strange and utterly irrelevant to the list's purpose. WP:LIST contains three reasons for a list on Wikipedia:


 * 1) Informative - One merely needs to put "list of gay people" into Google to know that there is phenomenal interest in such a list, regardless of sexuality. As an encyclopedia, it is our duty to provide information that people want. I started working on this list last November, and WP:LGBT have succeeded in filling the list with almost 2000 people, all of whom are cited with reliable sources. We are still only half done. Because of our policy of citing everyone individually, this list is one of the most comprehensive, and accurate, lists of gay people in the world, not to mention one of the most cited lists on all of Wikipedia. It is without a doubt, THE most informtive list of gay people, period.
 * 2) Navigation - in this sense, this list performs the same function as List of epileptics and List of HIV positive people: it allows anyone with an idle moment to skim through and discover interesting things about people they didn't know before. It is no more stigmatising to want to know who's gay than to want to know who's Jewish. Additionally, it may be of particular interest to isolated gay people to know that they are not alone, and they are not condemned to be failures in life because of their sexuality.
 * 3) Development - WP:LGBT has some new and interesting article ideas and other projects that cannot be fulfilled without a completed list. To delete this list would be to put back our project by at least twelve months, especially as we have spent so long working on it. The list further gives us a visual overview of everyone who falls into our scope.


 * If someone created a list for heterosexuals, they are welcome to, but I suspect it would be deleted, NOT because "it is nonsense", but because it is largely indiscriminate. Most people are heterosexual. The interest generated in a list of gay people, like a list of left handed people or list of converts to Judaism, is precisely because it does not include the majority of the population. A full list of gay people on Wikipedia would number some 20,000 individuals if we could cite them all (which we can't, people are still in the closet) - a list of heterosexuals would number some 400,000: what would be the point? To claim that this list needs to be deleted because it somehow reflects badly on the people who are "branded" gay is just ridiculous, it is no more shameful to be gay than it is to be bald. Even the nominator admits this list is informative and useful, so I am at a loss as to why it should be deleted other than at the behest of someone who seems to think being gay is a bad thing. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And why is a list of heterosexual people "indiscriminate"? There are millions of gay people on earth, so then this list is "indiscriminate" as well.  Sala Skan  17:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep &mdash; It is possible that this list will become unwieldily (there are a lot of famous people and a significant fraction of them will be GLBT). A list on famous heterosexuals would definitely be unwieldily. But my instinct is, while the list remains so well presented, let it stay and perhaps revisit the issue at a later date. Certainly there's no question many people, for whatever reason, take an interest in other people's sexuality. So the list, while possibly not ideal for Wikipedia, is probably going to draw more of a crowd than some of the other lists on Wikipedia. Cedars 14:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep, per Dev920.Callelinea 15:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Very Weak keep per the above, although I have to question the utility of such a sprawling list vs. categorization. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Dev920 makes a good case. Hut 8.5 15:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Dev920. Article is interesting, informative and well sourced. There are numerous similar lists on the internet, which shows how in demand it is, and this is by far the best I have seen. The idea that it is stigmatising is ridiculous considering that the vast majority of people on the list are either dead or have chosen to be open about their sexuality. It is not really comparable to a corresponding list of heterosexual people. You wouldn't, for example have a list of people who aren't Jewish to go with a list of Jewish people. -- Beloved freak  15:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dev920. Raystorm   (¿Sí?)  15:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep: WP:POINT anyone? Create the List of heterosexual people. Source it.  It would be valid in my opinion.  And *this* list is not only encyclopedic, it's extremely well sourced, thought out, and constantly being worked on. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  16:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A little bit tired of this "If it's sourced, it's good" argument that floats around in AfDs. I think List of LGBT people should be severely pruned to include people who's LGBTness is of huge significance to their lives (and no, you can't say that about everyone), not deleted. But to say that having a list of heterosexual people is "OK" if it's sourced is going WAY WAY overboard. Bulldog123 16:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're LGBT or you're not, I don't know how you quantify "huge significance". I'm not a gay activist but as I sleep with other men I'd like to like I'd make the list were I notable enough to have an article about me. And you sort of prove our point by inferring that there are so many heterosexuals, homosexuals are a minority in comparison. TAnthony 17:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dev920. Cap&#39;n Walker 16:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is an amazing article and I'm glad you nominated it or I otherwise might not have seen it. This is great information and that its vetted and avoids rumored inclusion is incredibly helpful. Benjiboi 16:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Only weak because I doubt anyone will actually listen and make the list more legitimate by pruning it. Bulldog123 16:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Dev920 et al. Bearian 16:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep ...here we go again. --emerson7 | Talk 17:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep As this list only includes sourced information, there is nothing inflammatory or "stigmatizing" (yikes) about it. These articles represent a large part of the larger movement to build the record of LGBT history. TAnthony 17:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The nominator's complaint is that the title of the list gives the list the appearance of being indiscriminate. Unfortunately, some readers expect that the membership criteria for a list be entirely set out in the name of the list. You see it all the time at AfD. While setting out the entire membership criteria for a list in the name of the list seems unlikely, perhaps the title should be changed to something like List of gay, lesbian or bisexual notable people so that we can at least end AfD nominations such as this one for the article before they are posted. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 17:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree with that. The criteria of inclusion in this list need to be very clear, and they currently aren't. The title is also confusing because it suggests that every gay person can be included in the list.  Sala Skan  17:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think notability goes without saying, this is Wikipedia. By the above argument we would have to add the word "notable" to the title of every list. TAnthony 17:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * TAnthony is right. Furthermore, one would have to be quite dense to both miss the point of an encyclopedia and the first sentence of the list, "This is a partial list of confirmed famous people who were or are gay, lesbian or bisexual", and still believe that we are trying to compile a list of every gay person in the entire world. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My point was that the criteria of inclusion in this list is exceptionally clear. Despite that, there will always be a few people who just don't get it and rather than curse their darkness, we should light a candle for them and move on. Also, we don't have to add the word "notable" to the title of every list, we should add it to this list to end the matter for this article. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 18:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But that's not a reason for deletion listed in either this or any of the previous AfDs. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, the closing adming will expressly note that in the close. I don't see this as a bad faith AfD nomination. I don't agree with the nomination or its reasoning, but I think we should assume good faith on this and make the most of it. But if you see problems in it, it may help to post your comments at Salaskan Editor review. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 18:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. I, too, think that this is a good faith nomination. However, the arguments above are all convincing -- the list is well sourced, and although it could be a bit clearer, it's still way above the other "list of ____ people" lists I've seen... Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 18:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep – I don't think this is a bad faith nomination, but I do think the nominator's analogy is a red herring. Minority status is notable; majority status generally is not.  &mdash; Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 18:19, 19 July 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.