Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay icons

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. IceKarma&#x0950; 00:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

List of gay icons
''This is a stray VfD from a while ago, so I'm listing it now. No opinion yet, but I will note that there is this and Category:Gay_icons, which seems to duplicate a lot'' Ryan Norton T 21:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This either needs to be pared down or deleted. According to this list, nearly every celebrity in America and parts of Europe is a gay icon. Just because gay people like a certain celebrity doesn't make that person some kind of idol to the homosexual community; the vast majority of the people on this list hold the same status with gays as they do with blacks, whites, men, women, and yes, heterosexuals. I realize that gay icons exist-- Cher, to be sure-- but 99% of the people on this list do not have some kind of special affinity directed at them by gays, nor do they possess some kind of high standing in the gay community. They just so happen to be heavily lusted after in gay pop culture (Bruce Willis, for example)-- the same way they are lusted after by straights.70.242.12.23 04:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Vociferously seconded. Cher, ABBA, Judy Garland, the Village People et cetera, all undeniably gay icons. Jennifer Aniston? Not so much. Besides, methinks a distinction must be made between gay icons and celebrities who simply happen to be gay or bisexual themselves, no matter how famously, infamously, or flamingly.
 * This item should be deleted. The category 'gay icon' is meaningless.  So-called gay icons are also admired by all sorts of people.  How about a left-handed'peoples' icons list or a color-blind peoples' icon list?  The other problems is who gets to decide who is a gay icon?  The decisions have to be totally subjective and, thus, invalid.  Also, the implication is that whoever is a gay icon, is gay themselves.  In the vast majority of cases that, of course, is not true. Get rid of the aritcle. ArielS
 * Definite delete. Although it has given me the idea for a screenplay in which Angela Lansbury plays a member of the Indigo Girls who travels back in time and is mistaken for Queen Christina of Sweden. Could be the gay cinema hit of the century. Peeper 22:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unverifiable list &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unverifiable and inherently POV. 23skidoo 05:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vague criteria, unmaintainable list, hopelessly POV. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete The only purpose of this list is to raise the profile of homosexuality. Blatantly pov even without the obvious accuracy issue. CalJW 08:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's in dispute that there's a significant gay community, and that certain celebrities are considered icons in that community. While this lists' problems are legion, I don't think advertising homosexuality is really one of them. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, it has nothing to do with raising the profile of the gay community. On the one hand, the choices are verifiable, by having discussions about why or why not certain people should or should not be listed...with members of the gay community, of which I am one.  On the other hand, it is repetitive (the article Gay icons) and as long as there is one, there's not much need for the other. Brian1979 12:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Hopelessly unverifiable lots of issues | leave me a message 09:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, overblown list with everyone from A to Z Timmybiscool 17:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-verifiable original research. Why is the climate here so different than that of WP:CFD?  Are subjective categories more acceptable than articles?  Category:Gay icons has been nominated for deletion at least three times since I've been here.  Hall Monitor 18:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: I thought this had been dealt with ages ago, with entries being added to Category:Gay icons to be dealt with individually. —Phil | Talk 14:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Reluctant delete. Gay icons do exist, but I don't see any assertions of how or why someone makes it on this list, or any suggestion as to how we could come up wiht a consensus.  Also, not very well written, but that could change.   paul klenk talk 11:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete category already exists and is better. Plus this is non-verifiable original research. Ryan Norton T 12:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete (redirect to category) ··gracefool |&#9786; 17:44, 25 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.