Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of same-sex couples (2nd 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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

List of same-sex couples
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

There is a tendency on Wikipedia to have a list for every conceivable topic, which is not appropriate to begin with, but regardless, this one takes the cake. It would be equally absurd to have an article listing every notable heterosexual couple throughout history. Furthermore, this type of article has been abused by child molesters advocating for the legitimacy of "pederastic" relationships by using this list and other LGBT articles to push their viewpoint, and unfortunately most editors have been looking the other way, so to speak. With this type of list, POV-pushing is inevitable. It cannot be stated enough, it is absurd to have a list whose sole purpose is to list notable same-sex couples throughout history, as well as using this article to push the views of a fringe clique on Wikipedia advocating "pederasty." An article about same-sex relationships in history is one thing, but just a list like this? I mean, really. Let's be reasonable. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Can we being letting go of these lists and merging them into encyclopedic articles worthy of merit? Laval (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete This is an absurd list. Keeping it would be tantamount to encyclopedic perpetuation of bias simply for bias' sake and not for any encyclopedic purpose. I am always open to having someone change my mind by way of reasonable argument (and I recognize I'm not making a strictly policy-based argument in agreeing with the nominator here), but I don't see any encyclopedic value to maintaining such a list, nor do I see its maintenance being practical in any way. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb  07:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Wikipedia is not a collection of lists. An article about the way homosexual couples have been treated would be a good idea. Simply listing homosexual couples in a list is absurd. Spoke shook (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete We have an encyclopedic article at Same-sex relationship, but an attempt to list all couples from antiquity to today's latest tabloids, many of which are unsourced and at least one (the "loverboys from Norway", which I have removed) is blatant BLP-violating vandalism? Absurd. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I do think the most notable of these should be kept and included elsewhere. Overall, I agree this is an absurd list to keep. |► ϋrбan яeneωaℓ  • TALK  ◄| 15:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Definitley delete per discussion.--Caravan train (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I have reviewed the policies and guidelines but didn't find the one that had been breached. So, as per everyone above, my argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thincat (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree that this is an absurd list. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep While i see definite problems with rational inclusion criteria and BLP issues, I think its well documented that this is a notable subject, and that same sex couples stand out as a category or list. the inclusion criteria issues include defining "couple", if not in fact married: how long would two people have to be together to qualify, and how would you measure the notability of a couple separately from their individual acheivements? we definitely dont have a list of heterosexual couples, so too many same sex couples here would be inappropriate. also a problem is what qualifies a couple as same sex: would it be biowomen+biowomen, and biomen+biomen, or would tg couples or bisexual couples with third parties be added? blp issues are obvious, we would have to source each name as self identifying. but, those are issues for the editors of the article. I would say this is at least a notable idea as List of coupled cousins, which is clearly a notable article. Even if you narrow down the definition of same sex couple for the sake of this list, I think we can formulate rational criteria, and I think we have some solid candidates for this article: couples whose same sex status makes them notable within the movement for same sex marriage/same sex partner rights (like couples representing their class in lawsuits before various supreme courts, or couples who have fought together for such rights), couples who have primary notability in other areas (like the arts), but whose same sex status has influenced them in their areas of notability, and historic couples whose relationship is widely discussed. The previous AFD final statement sums it up in my mind. Thincat: remember, sarcasm often doesnt translate well on the internet. i would recommend you clarify that you are !voting keep, not delete (or are you?)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Advocacy contrary to WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. The political bias becomes clear when you try adding a same sex couple like Laurel and Hardy. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * DELETE, absurd list, a list of married couples or bff's4life would be just as goofy.  He  iro  23:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep  Disagree that "absurd" is a policy reason for deletion.  I'm kinda unclear on the bias involved.  I appreciate that one editor has actually (uniquely in this discussion, I think) actually cited a WP policy or guideline, but I can't actually agree with the example provided in that !vote. When we've looked at lists of, say, Islamic podiatrists (yes, I just made that up) in the past in my experience, a primary test for the validity of the list was the notability of the topic of Islamic podiatrists, that the two were not simply an intersection of two unrelated sets. Certainly discussions of the experiences of same-sex couples exist and have unique characteristics, we have articles on the subject, from that perspective there's no argument for deletion. The Laurel and Hardy hypothetical doesn't make sense to me either--the article clearly intends to describe "couples" in the romantically linked sense, the exclusion of L&H (unless they were romantically linked, am I missing something?). So, where's the bias? Is it only a "POV" that (pick your favorite pair on the list) are a same-sex couple, or is that an issue for (gasp), sourcing? Someone spell this out for me in small words, because I'm honestly having trouble understanding the policy-based rationale for the delete !votes. --j &#9883; e deckertalk 05:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Refactor to include non-contemporary/historical examples only (Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater) -- A list of contemporary same-sex couples might have been notable 20 years ago, but it's not really notable nowadays. !vote to scrap the contemporary part, but keep the more historical examples. Wikignome0530 (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Although...if this stays, can I be on here with my boyfriend? --23 Benson (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2010 (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.