Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people (5th 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. postdlf (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Completely unencyclopedic and as the article itself says, impossible to maintain. This is a potential BLP minefield, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Note that all the alphabetized subpages are being nominated as well. This is the fifth nomination, but the last was in 2007, so it should get another look. (Also, I had trouble listing this, sorry if I completely botched it.) NYyankees51 (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article/subarticles appear to be reliably sourced and satisfy WP:LIST; any problematic individual entries can be fixed or removed as applicable. Regarding the issue of WP:NOTDIR vs. WP:LIST, there are many, many list articles regarding people, so it's unclear why this particular case deserves undue attention. Perhaps the nominator should initiate a more general policy discussion. AV3000 (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although the page does require monitoring for inappropriate or improperly referenced additions, in principle nobody can be added without a valid source — and therefore it is not "a potential BLP minefield", because names can't be added to it if proper sources don't support the addition. (And as anyone who's ever had to remove The Clash from List of hip hop groups or Gordon Brown from List of Canadian journalists — no, you only think I'm making either one of those up — can tell you, inappropriate or badly referenced additions that require us to clean them up once in a while regularly happen to almost every any list on Wikipedia, but that doesn't invalidate their entire existence.) In fact, the ability to support inclusion with full references is one of the reasons that such lists are often appropriate alongside categories; another is the fact that since the category tree is diffused on a variety of criteria, including nationality and occupation, the list is the only way that actually exists to consult a general, one stop cross-national and cross-occupational listing. And furthermore, listing people by topics of legitimate encyclopedic interest does not constitute "being a directory" in the first place; it constitutes being an encyclopedia. Oh, and these were locked against IP vandalism a long time ago anyway, which substantially reduced the amount of time that actually has to be put into maintenance. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - five times this has been kept, and I can't see that consensus has changed. It's watched by lots of editors, sometimes protected, and therefore the BLP danger is not very high. It's highly useful for our core readership - students in high schools, colleges, and universities, to have such lists in one easy place. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The last nomination was four years ago, that's why I put it up again. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Further comment - for some reason this AfD is also listed as the 2nd, so this is actually the 4th, not the 5th. The last one had a fair number of the delete votes but was closed when the nominator withdrew his nomination before the close. - Haymaker (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:SALAT and WP:IINFO. There are tens of thousands of famous LGBTs. Thus tens of thousands of potential members of the list. People are coming out of the closet in droves. Heck if you read Kinsey, everyone has a little homosexual in them. Anyone who denies the success of LGBTs is a homophobe and should be blocked. SALAT states "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value." And the broad nature of "Every famous LGBT" makes the list indiscriminate. On the other hand categories would handle this quite nicely and is a far preferable option to this massive, gigantic list.– Lionel (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete There is breathtaking BLP abuse potential here, paging through I noticed some pretty questionable inclusions. I'm also not sure what the threshold for inclusion here is. - Haymaker (talk) 06:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * BLP issues can be dealt with by ensuring robust referencing. It is not a reason for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Article/subarticles appear to be reliably sourced and satisfy WP:LIST; any problematic individual entries can be fixed or removed as applicable. There are lists of gay men only, lesbian women only, and Transgender people only on wiki so why not one for bisexual people as well? Deleting this article is bisexual erasure and shows biphobia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.163.122 (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC) — 71.185.163.122 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete People's sexual proclivities are not encyclopedic. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What about religious convictions and worldviews? Are they encyclopedic? WP has plenty of lists of this type. Lists of people by belief is an example. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See comment below re: OTHERSTUFF– Lionel (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What is a priori encyclopedic is what our readers want and need. That's why it should be kept. Bearian (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sexual orientation is noteworthy and the page has attracted 39,000 hits last month, so it is of interest. I agree to some degree with the nominator that it is unencyclopaedic bit since we have these lists and many others they may as well be kept. WP is riddled with lists. It seems that some Wikipedians have a, ahh, fetish with lists. Now I am making no judgement here but as editors we must put aside any bias against topics with which we are uncomfortable. It is an issue and the creation (pun?) of Conservapedia is a case in point. I disagree with the nominator that the article come under the purview of WP:DIRECTORY. None of the points there are applicable to these lists. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument at AfD. Encyclopedic value takes precedence over number of hits. We're not going to sacrifice quality at the expense of popularity. – Lionel (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Lionel, what are your talking about? Your comment is illogical.  What does OTHERSTUFF have to do with this discussion that "the page has attracted 39,000 hits last month...."?  This list was visited many thousands of times; this list is read and used by our core stakeholders. It should be kept because students visit, read, and use this list. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is the job of a category, not a list.  Sheer numbers makes this impossible to maintain and a BLP nightmare. Gamaliel (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that a category does not allow us to provide citations to this specific bit of biographical information, which is precisely why this page is useful. Users can ID LGBT people of interest and nail the critical reference all at once. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is, in my view, a bad faith nomination. One poorly sourced list is deleted three weeks ago, and nominator is probably angry and feels that there is a great unjustice in the world. But, this list is well sourced, and satisfy WP:LIST. In adition, WP:DIRECTORY is weak argument and doesn't apply to this list. If there is a problem with sourcing of individual entries it can be fixed or removed (like AV3000 has already said). But I don't see that sourcing is big problem (and even people who voted for deletion don't mention that sourcing is problem). Maybe nominator and some who voted for deletion should read Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point .--'' В и к и в и н д  T a L k  09:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You have absolutely no proof for your accusations against the nom and Delete !voters. These accusations are not just an abject failure on your part of WP:AGF, but due to the number of editors also a gross violation of no personal attacks. Your insinuation that editors are being disruptive by way of WP:POINT is incivil. – Lionel (talk) 03:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no proof? Read your comment here Lionelt! It pretty much says everything. --'' В и к и в и н д  T a L k  08:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Again I categorically deny your accusation. And what about Gamaliel, Jorge, Haymaker? They didn't participate at that AfD. What proof do have to back up your wanton, reckless and unfounded personal attacks now? – Lionel (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't read carefully my comment, I said: some who voted for deletion I didn't said all who voted for deletion.--'' В и к и в и н д  T a L k  13:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I striked some of my comments per WP:AGF.--'' В и к и в и н д  T a L k  14:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly of interest to users and worth maintaining. I don't see how it fails any of the tests described under WP:IINFO. As for WP:SALAT, that standard uses this example: "Special care must be taken when adding living persons to lists based on religion or on sexual orientation." Thus a list based on sexual orientation is anticipated. This particular list might at some point be reorganized -- some subcategorization might make it more useful, but it's well worth keeping. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note as well that the nomination complains "as the article itself says, impossible to maintain". It does not say that. It says "This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness." and that language is generated by a standard tag "Dynamic list". The wikipedia gurus have wisely anticipated such situations. It's no argument against maintaining the list. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:LIST and WP:POINT. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per most above. Nothing has changed since last four consensuses, or consenses, or whatever.  Agree that nom's good faith is questionable. PhGustaf (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: List items are very well sourced and notable, as established by reliable third-party secondary sources. The list is relevant and useful, as evidenced by the number of visits. It conforms to all of the requirements of WP:LIST. BLP and vandalism not a major problem because of the rigorous sourcing and the fact that the article is very well patrolled. I see no conflict with either WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO or WP:DIR. Also agree that the good faith of the nomimator is questionable. Because of the timing, this certainly seems like a retaliatory move in response to the recent deletions of List of Ex-gay people and User:Lionelt/List of ex-gay people to make a WP:POINT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment. Procedural relisting. This AFD was never transcluded onto a log page but if another admin feels that it still can be closed he is free to do so. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This article is encyclopedic and appropriate so long as the entries continue to be well references, and it appears to comply with WP:LIST. Edison (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, per all the above, verging on WP:SNOW. Highly notable, verifiable group, lots of nominations in the past. --GRuban (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2011 (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.