Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who do not label their sexual orientation


 * 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   Delete both. Icewedge (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

List of people who do not label their sexual orientation

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

List of people who appear to fall into several similar but different categories, none of which have their own article (presumably because the label or lack of label has no bearing on defining behaviour). Included in the "list of people who do not label their own sexual orientation" is a singer who is quoted as saying "I guess you would call me bisexual". All entries seem to be celebrities who are quoted by the press, which may imply a reluctance to discuss their sexuality with the general public, rather than a some strongly held belief. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note to all, esp. closing admin - After nomination and many of the votes/comments below, this article was split into two: List of people who do not label their sexual orientation and Unlabeled Sexual Orientation. Further commentors and the closing admin should be aware of this split. Lady  of  Shalott  01:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a very strange list and the problems with sourcing are sketched clearly by the nominator. 207.157.121.50 (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Pomosexual. — Bdb484 (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I see numerous problems with this page; not to mention it could include just about anybody. It certainly doesn't belong here, though.Fuzbaby (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It is an odd, and really quite crap, list. Four names, 3 I've never heard of, 1 who doesn't deserve their own page. Get rid off this. Alan16 (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with borderline article Pomosexual. Tacky listcruft really, but I can see a case for a merge here. Crafty (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Upon considered reflection and the views offered by SpacemanSpiff. Crafty (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia isn't the place for stupid lists like this. Alan16 (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Is this a list of people who are asked about their sexual orientation and defy labels? It looks more like a list of people who tell a reporter, "It's none of your damn business".  Mandsford (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As per Comment above.  This is a strange list of no consequence. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per the fact that the list fails WP:SALAT by virtue of including any public personality who desires some privacy. Also, the history of the article is a bit interesting with the name changes etc. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 03:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment- Note that this is a second nomination. The first discussion referred to the prior name of the article and can be found at Articles for deletion/Unlabeled sexual orientation. Lady  of  Shalott  03:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The implication that "doesn't talk about sexual orientation in public" means "does not label sexual orientation" is original research. --NellieBly (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  —  Lady  of  Shalott  05:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete both This was an article at Unlabeled sexual orientation before it was moved to List of people who do not label their sexual orientation yesterday. It has previously been nominated for deletion via Articles for deletion/Unlabeled sexual orientation on May 1, 2009. Additionally, this article was previously deleted via Articles for deletion/Anthrosexual in which during that Afd, Anthrosexual was moved to Undefined sexuality, which after deletion now redirects to the article subject of this Afd. Same creator of each article.- ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  06:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed mine from Delete to Delete Both since, in an obvious attempt to circumvent this process, the creator of the "List" copied and pasted the content into "Unlabeled sexual orientation" and made a few minor changes to make it appear as a second article. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  18:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would support a consensus to Delete. My intention in moving/renaming this article was not to bring about an AfD.  It was because the article was developing into a list, and that list's connection with the article title was as tenuous as the insignificant material used to substantiate the title itself.  I have no problem if people wish to delete this list, because the article is almost as pointless now as it was before (although the title reflects the contents more accurately now). Mish (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for all the good reasons already listed and that I don't need to repeat.Niteshift36 (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lists of people that don't do something seem pointless, and the defining scope seems synthetic. Yob  Mod  09:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems like it could be a pointless, infinite, impossible to keep up list. However, should it be kept, at the risk of making a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, I'd like to use the precedent to make List of people who are not Batman. --Smashvilletalk 13:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Ill be bold here in my opinion. I think the article is salvagable. There is defineatly some notability to the topic. I think the article name is a poor choice and i think the article would be better served without so much emphasis of these people. That said is there another article that covers this topic? Can the article be merged or redirected? I beleive there was a previous discussion pertaining to pomosexual and merging there which fell through. Beyond that i think the information is relevant. Just my opinion (but if consensus is to delete thats the way it goes Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep on the grounds that i have reverted the page back to it's origional title, unlabeled sexual orientation. Someone moved the page with NO consensus .--cooljuno411 20:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You also removed the AfD tag. I have replaced it. Do not remove it again - the deletion discussion must run its course, no matter what title the article/list/whatever has. Lady  of  Shalott  20:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And i kindly fixed your mistake. Next time readd the tag, don't be lazy and revert... it destroys the previous edits.--cooljuno411 21:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No vote as I don't think I can objectively vote on this, but I have to say, what are we, OK! Magazine? I know that "inherently unencyclopedic" is a WP:ATA, but this sure seems that way to me. Nosleep  break my slumber 20:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: List of people who do not label their sexual orientation was moved back to Unlabeled Sexual Orientation by its creator User:Cooljuno411 and then undid the redirect from List of people.. to Unlabeled Sexual Orientation and recreated a "different" but same article at List of people who do not label their sexual orientation whereby we now have 2 practically identical articles. So when this is deleted, they both need to be deleted. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  21:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nominator. Also, considering the article creator's tendancy to recreate it, Salt under this and the the other names. Edward321 (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the entire mess (both versions thereof - I'm not sure if we need to start a separate AfD). I have supported keeping in the past, but there has been plenty of time to provide references; I'm sorry to say this is basically original research. Lady  of  Shalott  22:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sorry, this really causes more problems than clarifying anything. The salient points - that must also need to be notable - can be sent to the BLPs and worked in if needed. Sexual identity can house a paragraph noting that some people, even famous ones, avoid labels. There, one sentence, problem solved. -- Banj e  b oi   22:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete them both, salt the earth: Seriously? Quite aside from that I don't remotely accept the creator's quite subjective definitions - which are half-neologism - the examples given conflate refusal to define one's sexual preference into some flavor of bisexuality.  You know something?  Stick a microphone in my face and ask me what my sexual preference is, I'm likely to respond "None of your bloody business."  Does that make me a Person Who Does Not Label My Sexual Orientation?  Enormously subjective, fails WP:LIST insofar as it could include a few hundred million people.    RGTraynor  10:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I would like Wikipedia's BLP guidelines to limit and control such lists. They are created in good faith by people acting in a thoughtful manner.  But then they get added to by others, still acting in good faith, but more spontaneously.  Personally, I think the results can be more harmful than deliberate vandalism. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete both -- this is just... I don't know, but I can't see a way to make either of these reasonable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The vast majority of people do not label their sexual orientation, so this, if it was anything like complete, would be an indiscriminate list. There may possible be an argument to be made for a list of people who label their sexual orientation as "unlabelled" (or "unlabeled" if there are more of these on the single-"l" side of the Atlantic). Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Time to close per WP:SNOW? Alan16 (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur - on both articles. Mish (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - But not per SNOW. Let it run out and then delete it so vandal edits after the fact can be speedied. Shadowjams (talk)
 * Delete both. A list of people who don't fall into any other list? A list for people who have explicitly said they don't belong on any existing lists? Sounds like publicity or voyeurism (or the symbiotic combination of the two) but not notable. Frank  |  talk  15:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete both with prejudice. Ridiculous and impractical WP:OR-ish concept at best. At worst, a POV attempt to list all the people who won't publicly bend to set social labels of sexuality. Rd232 talk 10:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that is unnecessarily harsh. I think the article was probably created in good faith, and not in some malicious manner. Alan16 (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that it definitely was. Hence the formulation. And POV =! "bad faith". Rd232 talk 05:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * POV isn't bad faith. We all have a POV, some people hide it better than others. Alan16 (talk) 05:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, != (or =!) is geekspeak for "not equal to". Rd232 talk 05:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've only come across != in IT, not =! (which would be equivalent), but I'd tend to go for <> myself. Mish (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it was a typo if you really want to know :) Rd232 talk 09:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, well, I should have said ≠ (not <> which shows my age), although not equivalent to would be !≡ rather than != not equal to


 * Delete This is a bizarre topic and maintainance would impratical at best.-- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 23:40, 3 August 2009 (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.