Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people (4th 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 Keep. This article indisputably passes the criteria at WP:LIST. Whilst categorization is a possibility, as the nominator's nomination withdrawal points out, Mediawiki category functionality means that such articles act as far more than mere lists. The excellent sourcing of the article(s) also meets any possible WP:BLP concerns. E LIMINATOR JR  21:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Note: There might be errors in this Afd as due to malformed afd's in the past this was the '2nd nomination', but really is at least the fourth.

Okay. Let's start from the top. Yes, I have read the previous AfDs. I'm not going to say this isn't verified, or that it's "stigmatizing". However it is, as stated on the page, now and forever will "never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness". Every person on this list can be noted as gay with the reference on their own page, and linked together with categories. I wouldn't consider this listcruft, as it does correspond to an article which is completely valid. However I believe (and further believe Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality bolsters) that the list is simply too broad in scope. Really, gay people themselves aren't so amazing that we have to catalog everyone in it. There are million (at least) in the world.

This is not a pointy nom, first off. Secondly, I think it would help to boost this as a credible AfD by trying to refute some 'keep' "votes" (for lack of better word, don't start me on that) given previously. Things provided for in this list, including nationality, could be put in cats. Some would argue, "but what's the point in 'East African gay blankety-blanks'?" Precisely. Subcats should be "recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right" for such inclusion, and I think that this shows how in context of a list, this list is once again too broad in scope. Secondly, to cherry-pick User:Dev920's rationale from a previous AfD: "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." Last time I checked, Wikipedia was not a support group. David Fuchs ( talk ) 01:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Further Comment: As WJBscribe has pointed out, and I have looked at, I am now fully assured every scrap of information in this list can or already has been categoried. It is fully superflous. For example from the featured list: List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: A: Leroy F. Aarons - 1933–2004 - American Journalist. The categories on his page are as follows: American journalists | 1933 births | 2004 deaths | American dramatists and playwrights | LGBT journalists. So in other words, we know from his article and category that he is gay, when he was born, when he died, his occupation and nationality. So what does the list add? Nada. David Fuchs ( talk ) 13:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

withdrawing nom. Discounting the numerous WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT comments, which really should never be used at a deletion discussion, especially one like this, I am nonetheless swayed by the fact that MediaWiki's category limitations make the categories less useful than the list itself as present. David Fuchs ( talk ) 17:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Having just come from a feisty Articles for deletion/List of LGBT characters in modern written fiction‎, where everyone was extremely civil, cool, and AGF'ed (even in the face of an editor who started off extremely ignorant on all issues concerned and is now slightly less so (me)), I would say that we should be able to do so again here. However, note that this list (or at least portions of it) are actually at Featured Article status (List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: W-Z, for instance).  I think it's nonencyclopedic content, just because I can't think of a good question or research need that it fills, and I think it attracts vandalism and contention, but I am not real solid on these opinions.  If it was notable with the fictional characters, it will probably fly with the real human beings, though. Deltopia 02:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I surfed on over to the WP: links you posted, and was amused to find this sentence: "[Naturally, citing this essay just by one of its many shortcuts (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill advised, for the reasons explained above.]"
 * Dybryd 16:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep It's been debated many times over, and the nom has nothing new to add to the discussion. - Cyborg Ninja 02:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I noticed you claimed you read the previous discussions, but I find it strange that you bring up the same exact points again that were already discussed. Why? By the way, this is a list of famous people, not ordinary men and women who happen to be gay as you make it sound. This comment from a previous AfD discussion sums it up well: 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) - Cyborg Ninja 02:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. If this has been debated many times and kept, the consensus must be that it is worthy of inclusion. This is a notable characteristic about those who are listed, as this is often the subject of attack and controversy. J- ſtan TalkContribs 03:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There should probably be AfD notices on all the sub-pages related to the parent document. -- Ned Scott 04:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep: As has been stated before, the list a) contains much more information than a cat possibly can, b) is (being in some cases) verified and referenced c) has THREE featured sublists (A, T-V, and W-Z), d) is actively maintained and updated by WP:LGBT, and e) is of encyclopedic interest. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you or someone else explain how this has "much more imformation than a cat possibly can"? If they're gay, the info will (or should) already be in the article. That means the only use if for relational links and cats, ergo, the category. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 19:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, picking an entry at random: Mark Adamo | b. 1962 | American |  Composer. How can those piece of information be conveyed in a category? If I wish to use a list of Wikipedia biographies so that I can read those of all gay American composers, how would the category help me seeing it will only contain the infomation: Mark Adamo? I would not know whether I wanted to read the article until I clicked on it, making my finding the content I'm looking for more difficult. One of the roles of lists is to aid navigation - these certainly do that... WjBscribe 03:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see no problem with that... Look at his categories: American composers | Gay musicians | LGBT musicians from the United States | LGBT composers | 1962 births. Every scrap of information about him is already in other categories. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 13:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree all the information is in the article, but Wikipedia only allows people to look through on category at a time - there is is no mediawiki search function for checking intersections of categories... WjBscribe 17:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. This should be a category, not an article.  All such huge category list articles should be deleted - List of English people, List of Italian Australians, etc. Colonel Warden 05:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. So large lists should not exist is your concept. Can you expand on this so others can grasp why that justifies deletion? Benjiboi 04:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and make into a category. There's no reason this should be an article by itself, it's simply far too massive. Out of six billion people in the world, millions are homosexual or bisexual. A category makes much more sense here. There's just no practicality in having an article on it.  Zchris87v  06:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't include refs in a category. And, of course, these pages will be limited to individuals notable enough for Wikipedia articles. Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  06:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, but articles include refs. -- Ned Scott 06:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think anyone has ever suggested that every gay, lesbian or bisexual person should or will be part of this list. Just as, I don't think that List of Kenyans is looking to include every Kenyan person on that list. If you really find it that unclear from the title/lead then it's quite simple to fix it, hardly a reason for deletion. -- Beloved Freak  10:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * KEEP - I find yet another Afd for a list which has now had THREE parts of it featured exceedingly weird. It's like trying to delete an FA because you don't like the content. Once again: 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 informative 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, but there are plenty of people who want to know both. The comment that the nominator pulled out of my comments last time was truly indeed cherry picking, tacked on as it was to this statement and never meant as an actual reason to keep.
 * 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.


 * We have been round this block many, many, many times, and the answers remain the same: it is not stigmatising or "outing" anyone, the list is not indiscriminate because WP:LGBT has a set of well used guidelines by which we include people, and in any case "list of gay people" is a pretty well defined list in itself. The nominator's point that we should sub divide such things into categories is an excellent one, and one may note that it was in fact I who AfDed [|List of LGBT South Asians] for that very reason. The fact is though that people are not being cross categoried as such here, and that a general list of everyone who's gay, as outlined above, is extremely useful as a list as well as a category. Certainly I have learned much from it, and I suspect that others have too. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What, then, is the purpose of a list which is so broad in scope it will never be completed? David Fuchs ( talk  ) 11:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What? Almost all lists of people, by their very nature, will never be completely and utterly finished, there will always be people announcing they're gay, or epileptic, or Jewish or whatever. That's why they're known as dynamic lists. We're still compiling this one in the sense that we have a list of names here that we (read:SatyrTN - bless his heart) are working through to find suitable references for and then add to the list. When we have finished them, the list will be complete, with teh exception of people we will add as and when they come out/are outed. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Er - no list of people could ever be complete because (a) people are being born all the time and (b) people are becoming notable (and therefore falling within the scope of this project) all the time. If incompleteness is to be the determining factor, it would seem we must do away with all lists of people... WjBscribe 03:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete As far as I can tell, this list does not provide enough for its notability. In my opinion, this is a list of people who happen to be gay.  Certainly, the list of Presidents or other rare person is warranted.  But, there are many, many people throughout the world that are gay and thus reduces the notability of this list.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlindEagle (talk • contribs) 17:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge or Redirect Changing stance to merge as this is not just a hook-up list but a list of notable people. If we do the same for muslim, jewish or hetero folks, the list would stand and so should this one.  -- Blind  Eagle  talk ~ contribs  20:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. If you note the list most of those folks have articles which means notability of each of them is asserted individually. If one becomes famous enough that their sexually is documented there's a reasonable chance they are notable or soon will be, luckily we don't have to speculate as the editors have labored to source almost everyone on these lists. I would agree if the list was every person who happens to be gay but that's not what it is. Benjiboi 18:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment We should probably change the name of the article as it does not reflect the true intent of the content portrayed. The new title should be List of notable gay, lesbian or bisexual people -- Blind  Eagle  talk ~ contribs  20:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment One presumes that each person on the list is notable, or they wouldn't have a Wikipedia entry at all. DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 03:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. Although I appreciate this Afd reminding us that all articles are subject to a reader's interpretation and that the LGBT community, despite decades of struggle, still fights for inclusion in history, it's still frustrating that a marginalized minority group has to defend its existence and reference its members before they can be listed as such. One need only turn on the news to hear the president of Iran insist that there are no gay people in Iran and contrast that with regular reports of persecutions and executions of men for consensual sexual activity to know that a list like this is a flare of hope in a world that would relegate all LGBT people to a dingy bar where they would have to fight for every scrap of human rights that non-LGBT folks simply take for granted like the right to have and keep their children or be legally married to the one they love. Please let's end this peacefully and quickly and get back to writing an encyclopedia that sheds light on such issues so that the world becomes a place where a label of gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender doesn't mark you for ostracism, discrimination and even death and instead becomes simply another facet of who one is. 17:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice speech, but are you honestly suggesting that we're trying to make gay people disappear by deleting an article on them? And last time I checked, this was peaceful; there's no need to drag in gay issues to make this AfD into some sort of Supreme Court case. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 23:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting that just like discrimination against LGBT people thrives in the real world it also is painfully at play on wikipedia. I can't speak for other editors but I spend a fair chunk of time simply reverting homophobic remarks and vandalism and this entire AfD feels along the same lines even if the nom was in good faith that this list couldn't possibly be useful to researchers or anyone else. It's obvious that these articles have been given a lot of positive attention and are well-researched so the issue seems to boil down to  is this community deserving of a list or do we need to free this sacred space for something of more importance to you. And speaking of the Supreme Court, it will evidently take a US Supreme Court decision to ensure that the notable people on this list have anything echoing the human rights that others (perhaps you) take for granted. You can pop over to Las Vegas and get married if you wish but the people on this list can't unless they have birth certificates proving they are a male-female couple. Same with family rights including protecting their children and property. It's still legal in most US States to fire someone based solely on them not being heterosexual. LGBT people are killed, often brutally, not for anything they did or do but simply because they are different. You personally might not be trying to make gay people disappear but throughout history LGBT folks have been erased and on wikipedia LGBT folks' bios have to be carefully sourced so we have a glimmer that their lives and cultures are not again deleted. Hence the speech. Benjiboi 04:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Benjiboi with respect, you are advocating like crazy here. AGF that this is a discussion about suitability for an encyclopedia :) This article won't stop anyone from getting killed. And actually, the Supreme Court mentioned above has already ruled on marriage as defined by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and it's a done deal. I've already withdrawn my vote in favour of changing the article lead (and title name should change to "List of Notable..." as described elsewhere.) You speak of the "people on this list" in heated defense but K_d_lang is on there and I'm not sure she fears for her life. No-one is trying to make you disappear, I at least am trying to make a better Wikipedia. Franamax 09:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I do appreciate your comments and have made a change to the lede to add clarity although others will have to decide if it works. As for kd lang, I can assure you her life has certainly been threatened but how serious those threats were and to what extent they were due her lesbianism is for others to sort out. For many who are LGBT just knowing they aren't the only one actually is a lifeline so I strongly disagree that the information here can't help save lives. This list is a virtual gay pride parade through history and easily the best one available anywhere. Benjiboi 10:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, last time I checked, it wasn't Wikipedia's purpose to be a "gay pride parade". David Fuchs ( talk  ) 14:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oohh, but wait, turns out that among many other purposes, one of WP's is actually Gay pride parade. More things on heaven and earth than thou dreamst of, Horatio... Franamax 14:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Great summary of what's going on here. It's the same feeling I got once I read that this list was nominated yet again. When does it end? It was last nominated only a few months ago. The same arguments are brought up repeatedly. Nothing new. But back to the point, it seems the general heterosexual population feels left out. For some silly reason, some think the majority should be just as noticeable and important as the minority. Straight Pride Parades, anyone? And yet still, they don't see what's homophobic or offensive about it. The nom seems to be in the dark about this, too. - Cyborg Ninja 01:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I have a couple of concerns with this article. The first is that the article asserts that it only lists famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people. That is clearly not what is indicated by the title. I am also wondering how sexual orientation came to be important or notable. After all, the people on this list only have that particular preference in common. What makes that notable or even worth mentioning? Finally, in order to counter bias don't we also need an article titled List of Heterosexual People? -- Cyrus      Andiron   17:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. A title renaming might make sense but is hardly a reason to delete. Sexual orientation was made notable by religious, social, cultural and governmental entities which segregated, hunted down, persecuted, discriminated against and in many cases killed those with sexualities or perceived sexuality that differed from the majority (ie. anyone not acting heterosexual). People look for this information from famous people and it is regularly talked, written and speculated about. If you wish to write List of Heterosexual People go for it, I imagine though you'll find that it quickly encompasses the vast majority of all bios currently on wikipedia. Good luck with that. Benjiboi 18:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Precisely. While there are demonstrably more heterosexuals than homosexuals, you simply wouldn't have a list of people. Are homosexuals the minority? Yes, so it makes sense as a category. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 19:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. This list provides information that even an extensive network of categories could not and does so concisely and in an easily navigatable way that is also easy to update. In fact, it's likely the reason the list was created in the first place was that any category is simply a plain list that only generally clumps people together. An actual list that is neutral is certainly of interest to those in the LGBT communities as well as those doing research of the same. There are books on this very subject whereas I don't recall many focussed on famous heterosexuals. Benjiboi 04:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Per Zchris87 above, make a category. Difference in sexual orientation is common. The list contains hundreds of people, it seems like it makes it's own argument against notability. Appropriate as a list for those seeking support in their own lives but that is not notable. Franamax 19:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Change article lead To me it is self-evident that GLBT people can and do contribute to society, a pretty accepted notion. I would reach for the minority analogy (and analogy is NOT proof) that the contribution of Jewish people to society is also awesome and self-evident. And yet there are many such WP lists, and it is not my place to define or undefine a people or group by myself, nor with a majority. I will go to my original concern with the article lead famous people who were or are... - what defines "famous"? The list is all Blue links which makes them notable (for Wikipedia) but not necessarily famous. Change the lead to "notable people" for one. And "were or are gay, lesbian or bisexual"? Were or are - this implies choice - which is exactly what the homophobes among us are looking for, is there still a cure then? Perhaps "notable people who have accepted/claimed/come out(??) their identity as gay/lesbian/bisexual"? Needs to be fixed up. Franamax 09:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is yet another list of loosely associated subjects and it fails our WP:FIVE pillars.  We don't need a List of heterosexual people, either.   Bur nt sau ce  23:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * STRONG DELETE and also delete sub-articles from a-z. I was the nominator for Articles for deletion/List of LGBT characters in modern written fiction and one of my concerns were that it is difficult to maintain the accuracy of such a list and much easier to maintain the accuracy of a category because any time the category is inserted into an article, many people who are very familar with the subject and have the subject in their watchlist would see it and might disapprove. The response to this concern was that I shouldn't worry about it because there's no risk of a WP:BLP violation. Well, in this case, there is a big risk of a WP:BLP violation, this particular list that has been nominated now looks like a BLP violation just waiting to happen. Furthermore, this list will never be complete and diminishes the value of wikipedia as a whole by having incompete lists. Pocopocopocopoco 00:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Most of your concerns have been addressed elsewhere but please further explain big risk of a WP:BLP violation as I'm not understanding how referenced inclusion on this list would be a WP:BLP violation. Benjiboi 07:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Turning the list into categories, (or relying on already existing categories) would make it much more difficult to maintain the accuracy. This list is already in the watchlists of (at least) several people who are absolutley determined to keep it neutral, verifiable etc. If there were no list, there would be potentially many articles added which were not on anyone's watchlist or watched only by people with no concern with the WP:BLP policy. As it happens, User:SatyrTN keeps well on top of articles that have been added to LGBT categories, but it is extremely unlikely that every article added to a LGBT category will have a group of interested individuals working to maintain it's accuracy and verifibility. Thanks to the ongoing work of User:Dev920 and User:SatyrTN to pull these lists up to Featured standard, the verifibility of the sources are being, and will continue to be checked, and any questionable changes can be quickly reverted. Relying on categories would put the onus on the random person that comes along and adds the category because they heard that the subject might be gay, and anyone elso who might happen to have the subject on their watchlist. -- Beloved  Freak  10:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. The people who have the this article on their watchlists know far less about the subjects then the people who have the subjects on their watchlists. Pocopocopocopoco 15:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The people with this list on their watchlists may know little or nothing about the individual people added to the list, but they are well aware of the WP:BLP and at least a handful are very determined to keep it neutral, verifiable etc. There will be plenty of people on the list or added to it in future who don't have knowledgeable people watching their articles. It's much easier for someone to click revert on the list every time a questionable entry is added than for someone to see one of "their" articles being added, and think "oh, is he gay? I never knew... I wonder if I should leave that on there..." I don't see why we are agruing for a list OR a categories, there is no reason not to have both. With both, everyone can keep an eye out. -- Beloved Freak  17:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dev920 (talk • contribs)


 * Giorgio Armani (living?) is in the list as "disputed sexuality," a fairly strong statement, based on an interview where he states having had gay sex while young (misread this). Does that make him gay/bi? WP:BLP indeed. Franamax 03:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep a useful browsable research tool. Maybe you think that encyclopedia readers shouldn't be interested in this information, but the fact is many are and will be interested in searching for people by sexuality.


 * The fact that it's such a large group is what makes a list useful - most of the members will be in much more specific sub-categories (lesbian writers, etc.) rather than in the top level of Category:LGBT people, and so this will be the only way to view the whole group of articles on one page.


 * As for the possibility of BLP violations, any BLP article is a violation waiting to happen - that's no reason to delete them! It simply means they require more vigilance on content.


 * Dybryd 01:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As I have pointed out above, there are already specific LGBT categories, seemingly for every occupation and nationality. So we are hardly deleting a list with no other way to present the imformation. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 13:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - A list is a better way to present the information. There is no reason why lists and categories cannot coexist peacefully. Both are useful in different ways. -- Beloved Freak  14:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy and STRONG keep - Perhaps the most ridiculous comment in the nom was, "gay people themselves aren't so amazing that we have to catalog everyone in it" - the gay culture has been one of the most influential in the last 100 years. A fourth nomination is very pointy.  The last nomination was only three months ago.  I question the motivations of the nominator and the deletes, who seem to want to keep raising the same arguments that these lists have survived three times already, in hopes that it will land on their side.  It's difficult to assume good faith.  Only sourced LGBT people are included on the list, so there are no concerns about BLP violations.  As for "attracting vandalism" I don't understand how that's a credible argument since we have a wide range of articles that attract vandalism because they are contentious or deal with certain body parts.  It's not a reason to go Lowest Common Denominator.  Aside from that, as someone who has had these lists on my watch list, they don't attract much vandalism.  -- David  Shankbone  01:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Some of the lists are works in progress but please check out List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: A, which is a featured list, to see the potentially quality that the list maintainers are working towards. The entries are sourced and the page carefully watchlisted for poorly sourced additions and vandalism. These lists also allow brief biographical information about the those listed (e.g. nationality, occupation) that Category:LGBT people is incapable of providing. It seems to me that sexuality remains an important sociological factor - and the ability to look at the nationalities and professions of those openly lesbian, gay or bisexual is academically useful. The entries also include DOB, allowing historical research as well. Like all good lists, they act as a positive aid to navigating Wikipedia content as well as allow the information to be sorted in a way that categories do not. The lists have also been put to good use in ensuring compliance with BLP - monitoring every article is much more difficult than monitoring these lists. As all entries on the list are sourced, a Bot can run them against the Categories - any page that has the category that isn't included on the list should be investigated to ensure that reliable sources confirm the subject's sexual orientation. If not, the category can be removed. The BLP problem in this area is much more centred on categories being added without sources, than entries being added to this list (indeed this reflects one of the inherent failings of the category system). As to adding a word like "notable" to the title - consensus has always been against this. We only include notable content - therefore all person listed must be notable. Adding this requirement in the title seems clumsy and unnecessary. WjBscribe 03:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, this list meets all the critera for Lists. The fact that it is a large list is not a sufficient reason to delete, see for example List of educators and List of record labels. I agree that gay people are not so amazing that we need catalog everyone who is, but this is not a list of everyone in the universe who is gay, it is not a list of millions of gay people. It is a list of LGB people who are famous, enough so to have Wikipedia articles devoted to them. It is a maintainable list, easier to navigate than a category, and more helpful in research than a category. Queerudite 05:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It's pretty much no use for me to state my actual opinion here, because this discussion is rather pointless. The article is well maintained, and has far too much support by the LGBT wikipedia community that won't let it be deleted. So the deletionists can try all they want and it simply just won't happen. Dr. Cash 06:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The gay cabal won't let it die is no reason for inclusion or deletion. If you have an actual point then make it otherwise your comment reeks of passive-aggressive homophobia. Benjiboi 07:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment From previous AfD (on the absurd notion some deletionists have made that every gay person is expected to be added to the list): "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." - Cyborg Ninja 07:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP (again) - How many times are we going to have to defend this list from deletionists? Four deletion nominations sorely tests any assumption of good faith I might have. Let's close this exercise in divisiveness and return to writing an encyclopedia, please. Jeffpw 09:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Per many editors on this and previous discussions, per too many arguments to name. One theme that seems to be coming up here is "why is their homosexuality notable?" or that someone's sexuality isn't enough of a defining feature to group people by. The fact is that for the majority of lesbian, gay or bisexual people, their sexuality has a big impact on their lives at least for some part of their life. I think it's easy for open minded Western liberal folks to say "OK, so they're gay, who cares?" but a) in most of the world, including sections of the US, UK etc, being other than heterosexual is a very big deal, has a huge impact on one's personal life and for many people shapes their life. b) For most famous people, being other than heterosexual is a big enough deal that they have to either hide it or make a big decision about coming out in public. Many famous gay people have had common struggles with their lives and careers that straight people in the public eye will never experience. Therefore it is a big part of who they are, perhaps more so than the average non-famous gay person. (not to downplay the struggles of ordinary folk, but some of the issues faced by famous people are different...) For someone that has become widely know as a "gay actor" (stigmatised by some, celebrated by others) why should wikipedia ignore this fact? I absolutely believe that someone's article should only explore the subject's sexuality as far is appropriate to that individual and how it affects their life, but a list of LGB people has a great deal of informative value. And to the people who persist with "Who cares, so he's gay, get over it already", good for you. I think you're very lucky to live in a world where sexuality really doesn't matter, but most of us don't. -- Beloved Freak  10:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well hang on here - I think I'm on record as neutral (I hope) (but not that way! LOL) - but everyone's life is defined by their sexuality, everyone's life is impacted big-time by their sexuality. Everyone has to deal with their "shameful" urges and sexuality is a big part of all lives at all times - check out sexual harassment and divorce rates. You are arriving at advocacy, is that appropriate here? What about those commie-hating capitalist-haters? (Again analogy is NOT proof)
 * And if the personal article explores sexuality only as far as appropriate, why would another article explore that topic further? Does it become intrusive? I cite G. Armani (the only example I could find lol) as an intrusive reference to his "disputed sexuality" - but instructive of where the article might progress. No-one is attacking gays here that I can see. I think the discussion gets a little blurred by passion but aren't we supposed to be dispassionate when being encyclopedic? And who said that famous or non-famous, gay or non-gay, that we don't all have an equal right and ability to defeat ourselves. Who among us exactly is the special person with the special challenges? Franamax 11:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree with a lot of what you have to say but I think that you're either missing my point or I am not putting it across properly (probably the latter!). I don't think that I'm "arriving at advocacy", if it seems that way, it's certainly not my intention. I am absolutely not disputing that one's sexuality has a huge impact on everybody's lives (well most people... I'm sure there are some people who would deny that). I guess what I'm trying to say is that the issues faced by LGBT people can be identified as a particular type of issue. Not saying that every LGBT people faces the same issues, obviously that's over-generalising but, there are a lot of common issues there which make a list relevant. And I'm really trying not to be passionate here about my own feelings on LGBT issues, I just think that when people say that homosexuality is non-notable because lots of people are gay, it's considered quite normal nowadays and really who cares... are coming from a biased perspective. All this talk of problems people have to face is getting off topic, my point isn't "poor persecuted gay famous people, they deserve a list..." Really I am just trying to argue (badly) that being other than heterosexual is notable. Keeping the list rather than just categories has been argued extensively already. (By the way, I agree that no-one whose sexuality is "disputed" should be on the list.) I'll stop rambling now... -- Beloved Freak  12:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See at (if the link goes) User_talk:Benjiboi for my latest. Must sleep now :) Franamax 12:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This both, contains three featured lists and has been nominated for deletion three times. There is no difference in policy between then and now I believe, and the list is by now probably better. If I understand what you are proposing then this information will be in a much less useful form, if retained at all. --Tyrfing 12:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As even the nominator notes, these lists are well verified, the criteria being that inclusion requires a cite to at least one published source. Identification of a person as gay, lesbian or bisexual is somewhat different than putting someone on a list of, say, Democrats or Southern Baptists.  Nobody has to worry about the consequences of being identified as a Democrat or a Baptist; nobody has to worry about the consequences of erroneously identifying someone as a Democrat or a Baptist.  Coming out of the closet, though more acceptable now, is still a risk in most lines of work.  Mandsford 13:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WjBscribe. Fireplace 13:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Hercules Heman Hulk Hogan Keep - What's next, Lists of African Americans? 4 times is enough already. No, 3 times was enough already. --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  16:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to nominate List of African Americans as redundant and better served with a category, yes. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 16:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you would huh? --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  16:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 17:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, totally superfluous list. Pointing to List of African Americans is a perfect example of WP:INN.  Broad lists of loosely associated people are not something I would ever expect or hope to find an an encyclopedia, not even this one.  RFerreira 19:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since WP:INN is an essay and not policy or guideline, it holds no weight here. If you delete this list, you've got to delete all the other List Of's on WP. --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  20:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Confused You withdrew the AfD and closed the discussion, then re-opened the discussion (I'm assuming not the AfD too since the article isn't tagged AfD), removed some of the comments in the AfD discussion, and did it all per WP:SK, which only applies to closing such discussions with a "Keep" result. I mean, how can you as the AfD starter, withdraw an AfD and then decide to re-open it? If you've only re-opened the AfD discussion, what's the point of that if there's no AfD? --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  20:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I was informed that I can only close such a nom early if there is a speedy keep result; as there are delete votes, then I should let the AfD run it's course. If you had read WP:SK, you would have figured that out too. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 22:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No need to be a smartass about it. Closing an AfD and Withdrawing an AfD are 2 different things. You nominated the AfD and then you withdrew the AfD and therefore, this discussion should be closed and done with. That's all I'm saying. --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  23:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The nominator of an article at AfD's views are no more important than anyone else's - so the fact that they change their mind should be no more important than if someone else does. There are a number of editors who support deleting this list who have not withdrawn their opinions. Nominator begin discussions but they cannot end them unilaterally unless there have been no other delete opinions. WjBscribe 01:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, if this AfD discussion is still open (did the nom withdraw it, or not? It's very confusing.)  Keep for all the reasons above, which are basically the same reasons in the previous three AfDs- because all the entries can be cited, because glbness is in fact newsworthy, as evidenced by the frequency of 'outings' in the news, and because the list has uses that are not filled by the category.  Does a time come when we can say that consensus supports keeping this list, and we don't have to have any more AfD discussions of it?  I mean, unless the list significantly changes or Wikipedia's standards significantly change, how many times do we have to debate this? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP - The lists justify themselves at the top of each entry by stating why the notability of sexual orientation is important. These lists are painstakingly referenced, maintained, and kept vandalism-free. I find them useful and informative. I'm at a loss as to why this is once more up for deletion. With four deletion discussions, I can't imagine mustering the effort to elaborate on why something should be deleted so many times unless its existence gave me the energy to do so through anger or offense. --Moni3 14:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
 * Keep - Useful index. Among other things, Wikipedia's lists serve as indices. See the Math-related lists, for example.  Note that a page does not have to be complete to be useful.  Many pages of Wikipedia will always be works-in-progress, just like Wikipedia itself.  Just because it's not complete, is no reason to delete Wikipedia.  The same logic applies to its articles.  The Transhumanist 22:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * SPEEDY & STRONG KEEP This article's last AfD was closed as a speedy keep on July 19, 2007, less than two three months ago. I believe that the nominator of this, the 4th AfD, acted in good faith and for what David Fuchs believed was good reason, and he gains respect for withdrawing the nomination, something that's not easy to publically do. This AfD never should have come up again at all, and especially so soon, after several previous AfD nominations. I !vote a very strong keep per all the above keepers, here and in the previous discussions. As to why there needs to be a list of LGBT people, that's because there is the assumption of heterosexuality that permeates lists and most of life. One does not need to have a list of heterosexual people, but having a list of LGBT people is extremely encyclopedic, and I find it hard to understand why some editors seem to be relatively clueless about the difference, even though I don't believe that they are intentionally so. It's a matter of perspective and experience. It's not that LGBT people are special, it's that LGBT people are an oppressed minority, just as Native Americans, and many more groups are. And having lists of people that are notable because of their minority status is something that readers will want to see. Isn't that why we are here?  WP is not our grandfather's encyclopedia, so please lets not try to force it into the same boring mold. And for the millionth time, deletion should be the last resort, not the first when an article needs improvement, and no one has suggested that this article does. When being gay is no more remarkable throughout all of society than being left handed, then I will agree to delete all such articles/lists as being unnecessary. — Becksguy 23:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * that list was deleted. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You got me. Good one! (Don't know if I would have !voted to delete or keep in that one.) But I really don't think I'm in any serious trouble of eating my words when people are murdered for being gay, like Matthew Shepard and Michael Sandy (and many many others), or for being Black, or for being Native American, or for believing in the wrong god, or for basically being "different". And that's what we are talking about here, I believe. — Becksguy 00:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to be nitpicky, but lefties were often forced to convert or killed- it was often seen as a sign of the Devil. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 22:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Finally I have the affirmation I have long sought that Jesus loves me more than others because I am right-handed. Yay! --Moni3 23:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
 * Thanks for bringing it up, David Fuchs, as I had forgotten that. Doesn't change my argument, however. — Becksguy 08:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * DELETE - list cruft...Non-notable.-- Mo nni te wa rs (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How is this non-notable if all these folks here (including me) are calling it notable? I don't use all kinds of lists, like the Periodic Table of Elements, but because other people do, I can't claim it is non-notable. --Moni3 23:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
 * No one cares or at least I don't care who's a Homo or who is Bi. This list is not needed.-- Mo nni te wa rs (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care about professional wrestling. Let's delete all those articles.... Seriously, you need a better argument than that. Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  05:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Monnitewars, unless you are a homosexual, don't be tossing about the word homo as if you have some ownership or right to the word. In otherwords, stop being a jerk and using pejoratively. --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  05:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, how fortunate that Monnitewars voiced this opinion. In doing so, he's illustrated quite beautifully the necessity for these lists. Imagine growing up listening to an opinion like that one's whole life, from parents, friends, classmates, and siblings. Would that be all there was to keeping someone from being gay, I'd be straighter than Fred Phelps (who is probably pretty gay). These lists go to show that not all gay folks are as rare and un-noteworthy as Monnitewars would have us believe. The people on this list, and compiled in this list show gays to be diverse and notable, serve as an informational tool for both the kids who have to listen to opinions similar to Monnitewars', and others like him. And for those who just can't stand to be on the same internet with such a compilation of notable gay people, that's why God invented the back button. --Moni3 05:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Strong keep per Dev920 and WjbScribe mainly. Categories simply don't cut it. Plus the ongoing work of members of WP:LGBT has already produced two featured lists. Claims are referenced, so there are no WP:BLP issues. Being LGBT is newsworthy and encyclopedic. I simply don't see any violation of Lists. Keep per all keeps Raystorm   (¿Sí?)  11:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You just ignored every word I said didn't you. I have a cousin that died from a overdose that was GAy so don't talk to me about hating gays cause I don't I don't like their life style but I don't hate 'em. I just think a list like this is not needed.-- Mo nni te wa rs (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: And by the way where's David Bowie... http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/davidbowie/articles/story/8856155/bowie_proclaims_hes_gay |

Re: Moni3. Paranoid? Seems to me that the problem with the 'GLBT people of alternative notoriety pages'lay with the straining at gnats likes of you. I'm simply someone who happened to have somewhat stumbled accross the list and realized that as it says in the preface, is incomplete. Those that I selected are / were well known even to the general public [ at least mostly to those that read or watch the news as being not so straight. I don't believe that even Liberace with all of his glitz, pink hotpants and over the top ifeminate ways ever openly admitted to actualy being gay. I have attempted to verify my edits as requested and have also realized by some of the more positive feedback that I've recieved - certainly none from you and your high horse, - that my verifications need to be more accurate and substantial. Fine. My being a registered member or not of wikipedia in anyway shape or form is not a prerequisite to participation in this forum and what comes accross as an insistance on your part that I 'log in' in order to satiate some strange need of yours for validation and another statement that you made in so many words of 'not knowing much of this wiki thing process' makes you the wierd one and vandel. 72.235.203.202

P.S. You stated in your recommendation of this particular forum that it was, in your words, an "incredible discussion." Yeah, for you maybe and the rest of the bird brains.

C`iao
 * Reply:It would be more appropriate for you to leave messages on my user page instead of the middle of this discussion. It's not just me or WP:LGBT Studies who may seem inflexible over referencing. It's a conscious effort on the part of all of Wikipedia: Reliable_sources. Because of the nature of these lists, though, we're held to a higher standard of reliability. --Moni3 11:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Comment: Note taken. 72.235.203.202
 * Comment Why is this list needed? One might browse this list looking for notable gay people as a way of expanding one's self knowledge. Or maybe one has a paper to write about notable gay people and this list provides a selection to chose from. Or one might get validation by seeing how many notable people are gay.  All of those, and others, are completely valid and highly encyclopedic reasons for having a list, and this one in particular. The concept of LGBT or gay lists is so obvious and valuable that books in that arena have been written. A few examples: The New Gay Book of Lists by Leigh W. Rutledge,  Gay Artists in Modern American Culture by Michael S. Sherry , and Who's Who in Gay and Lesbian History by Robert Aldrich .  — Becksguy 17:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then leave it to the book..this is an encyclopedia, not rumor central.-- Mo nni te wa rs (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment These aren't rumors that are being posted. If you have a concern with any of the entries or their references, you should bring it up with WP:LGBT Studies. However, no doubt many people like you will dislike the inclusion of these lists for their own personal reasons. Regardless of those, these lists are notable, they are factual, and they are encyclopedic. Deleting the lists starts a dangerous precedent that because the lists make some people uncomfortable they should go. Wikipedia should uphold the quality of research to verify facts within it, but it should not promote censorship. --Moni3 20:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3

What the deletion of this list WOULD DO is get rid of an unneeded list...nothing more...nothing less.-- Mo nni te wa rs (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the "unneeded" that's inaccurate. Really, no matter how you try to phrase it. It's subjective, and though it's not you, there are people who do need the list. --Moni3 20:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
 * To find out whether or not this list is needed on Wikipedia is the whole point of this discussion. To call it "rumour" or to say that you don't care who's gay is not really helpful. -- Beloved Freak  20:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT - Point is...there's no room on wikipedia on for a list like this...it's not notable.-- Mo nni te wa rs (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - No room? Wikipedia is not paper, we're not running out of space. Any many people have argued many times over that this list is notable. Could you give us some good reasons why it's not notable? -- Beloved Freak  20:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think he can. I think he just doesn't like it. Jeffpw 21:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The numbers certainly have it here, but I don't think we need to turn this into some sort of strange "If you vote delete on this list, you are discriminating against this group of people" campaign. Thats not only disingenuous, its downright disgusting.   Bur nt sau ce  21:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Quit underminding me and listen...IT'S NOT NOTABLE!!!-- Mo nni te wa rs (talk) 21:45, 10 October 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.