Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of virgins


 * 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. Nandesuka 14:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

List of virgins

 * List of virgins was nominated for deletion on 2005-11-18. The result of the discussion was "keep".  For the prior discussion, see Articles for deletion/List of virgins/2005-11-18.

This article is currently undergoing a POV dispute and I don't see any prospect of the issue ever being one which doesn't contain POV. The subject matter is not one for which there is likely to be much historical evidence, so, although there have been efforts to improve the article, I think the nature of the subject means a list of proven beyond all reasonable doubt virgins will be virtually impossible to create. As I see it, the article will always have POV entriesLurker your words/my deeds 14:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note This article was nominated on 9th April, 2004 and withdrawn the same day Lurker  your words/my deeds 14:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect to the contributors of the list, this sort of thing is unmaintainable and of dubious value. If we need to note people who are significant for having been virgins, do it via categories, where those who know the most about the subject can maintain the inclusion/exclusion. Delete. -- nae'blis 14:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's unmaintainable, it's divisive, it's never going to be complete, it's potentially libellous, it's arbitrary, and it's indiscriminate. Proto ::  type  14:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This list is hopeless. It is completely unmaintainable. Take for example the fictional characters section, I removed it when it had The 40-Year-Old Virgin and Seymour Skinner, now it has resurfaced with a character from a Shakespeare play, one from a Stephen Sondheim musical and a (probaly) fictional Roman person. Most of the other sections consist of equally random entries. Then there are the arguments about the inclusion criteria, and so on and on. Stefán Ingi 15:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and Clean Up If this article was limited to historical figures only I can see where it would be an interesting and informative article.  There will always be disputes but they can be handled in an NPOV fashion.  Having living people on it is a bit intrusive though (Does Hillary Duff deserve to be listed this week?).  Dipics 15:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per nom. This list is unverifiable and ultimately not maintainable as pointed out above. WP:NPOV disputes have already cropped up. I fail to see how inclusion on this list could ever have verifiable sources to establish one's "virginity" credentials. Non-encyclopedic, borderline WP:NPOV, and ultimately unverifiable. Scorpiondollprincess 15:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 15:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unverifiable.  Da rk Sh ik ar i   15:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and other "delete" comments. Agent 86 16:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete due to verifiability concerns. Even if some of these people have said so in interviews or whatever, we can never really know.  In addition, seems like a problematic vandalism target, as people add their random friends or whoever.  Looking at the history, it seems that has already happened a few times, in fact. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the same verifiability concerns have been successfully overcome on List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, List of Swedish Americans, etc. Carlossuarez46 17:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The two are not analogous. List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people is not a set complement.  A "list of virgins" is, given that every human being in the world is born a virgin.  Per Lists (stand-alone_lists), set complements such as this are too broad to be appropriate topics for lists.   A list of virgins in religious mythology, a list of virgins in works of fiction, or a list of historical figures who were virgins at the times of their deaths may be more suitable topics for individual lists, given that they apply further constraints on the list contents in addition to just "is a virgin". Uncle G 18:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The criteria for the list, for "historical and legendary" virgins, is quite valid, and can be verified, especially for deities and those who have claimed to be virgins til their deathbed. This list should NOT have any living people however per WP:LIVING. The name of the article should be moved to better reflect the criterial already set. hateless 19:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but define and enforce limits. I basically agree with Uncle G's comment just above Hateless's vote, but don't see why these would have to be separate lists rather than separate sections within one list. It might benefit from a move to something like "List of people notable for remaining virgins", but either way it needs a very clearly worded explanation at the top of what is and is not to be included, and editors willing to strictly enforce it. The talk page can be used to discuss any controversial ones before they're re-added. --Icarus (Hi!) 19:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would absolutely support a Category:Fictional virgins, Category:Mythological virgins (though I can see some arguing over where to put Jesus Christ in that one!), and Category:People who were virgins until death under Category:Virgins, but I think the list is a bad idea for reasons stated earlier. I'll help transfer these to categories, though, if these do get deleted. -- nae'blis 20:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment In general, I agree that categories are better than lists. The specific categories might work (and for controversial ones like Jesus and Mary, there could be a special category for religious figures). My one concern here, however, would be the over-arching Category:Virgin. It would be harder to keep a close eye on, however. It would be easy for people to not see the standards of inclusion and start listing, for example, the articles for every child actor or otherwise famous child they can think of. With a list, people can't just add a person to it without going to the list itself and seeing any criteria for inclusion listed at the top. --Icarus (Hi!)
 * Yes, but anyone adding a category has to do it where people who have the most knowledge about that person are likely to be concentrated: their article! You're right, though, that Category:Religious virgins would be better than mythological, as it covers both cases. Good catch. Caetgory:Virgin should probably include folks who were notable for being virgin at some point (Elizabeth, Donna Edmondson, etc), and most spurious additions will be removed in their article. I think it's an inherently more maintainable system, and any truly spectacular cases can be mentioned in virginity (as they already are, in fact). -- nae'blis 02:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment a list of people real or mythical, reputed for being virgins, or widely known for being virgins would be good. They don't actually have to be virgins until death. For instance, Queen Elizabeth I, is called the Virgin Queen but she was not a "virgin". And the Virgin Mary is only known to be a Virgin through the birth of Jesus. After the birth, there is no attestation she remained virginal until death. Mythology is replete with virgin births, so those virgin mothers should be on such a list. Several big-name scientists are famous for being virgins. (and some for debauchery as well). There's also the Virgin Playmate Donna Edmondson, who is famous for being a virgin when she posed for Playboy. 132.205.45.148 00:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. GassyGuy 20:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's hopelessly POV and unverifiable. Without independent medical evidence, then it's claims of virginity (and, of course, there's the social pressure to claim virginity).  In addition, it isn't clear what definition of virginity is used.  And, looking at the talk page, the inclusion of Mary mother of Jesus will amount to endorsing a Catholic POV, while leaving her out will amount to endorsing an anti-Catholic POV.  Guettarda 21:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The name could be changed to "List of people believed to be virgins" or "List of people claimed to have been virgins" or something similar. As for Mary, the easiest solution would be to list her, but put a note right after her name stating that some denominations believe this, and some don't. That covers all bases without supporting any one in particular. --Icarus (Hi!) 21:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Beware of weasel words. -- nae'blis 02:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What's the point of a list of people who are "probably" virgins? Again, looking at the page history, there's some discussion of Britney Spears.  She originally claimed to be "waiting for marriage" (despite the Fred Durst allegations, etc.) and then eventually said she wasn't.  So when do you remove someone - when they stop talking about it, when they stop proclaiming their virginity?  Is it really any of our business?  We shouldn't be a gossip rag.  As for "List of people claimed to have been virgins" - wasn't everyone a virgin at some point in time?  Guettarda 04:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this would actually work, I just thought it should be put out as a suggestion. I, for one, would probably support a proposal to not list contemporary figures like Britney Spears because their status can change so quickly. I'd support keeping it for historical (or at lease deceased) figures whose virginity was deemed notable enough to be included in some sort of reliable source, such as a biography. (And, as for everyone having been one, the list would be for people who died as virgins or were otherwise notable for having been virgins.)
 * Nae'blis is right to point out the risk of weasel words. In individual entries, it would therefore be important to cite sources as the bullet points at the beginning of WP:WEASEL encourage. For the proposed change in the name of the article, I think that this would be a case where it's not weasely, just honest to acknowledge that we can't really know who has or hasn't lost their virginity. Like I said, there may be no good way to fix the problems with this list, but I think it best to at least try. --Icarus (Hi!) 10:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not just have this as a list of people famous for reputedly being virginal? Mythological instances are easy, since the claim is in the myth (This would include Mary, mother of Jesus - as this is Christian mythology). While Queen Elizabeth I, is attested to not be a virgin, but is famous for being the Virgin Queen. This would also cover Donna Edmondson as she's famous for being the Virgin Playmate, though she is now a mother and thusly no longer a virgin. The reputation for being virginal is a better and more verifiable fact than the actuality of it. Though I would not consider that any young person be placed on the list (ie. Britney Spears) as most young people are virgins for a large portion of their youth. Black Dhalia is a famous virgin because she was medically incapable of having sex... so there is the question about what to do with those medically incapable of sex... (and the definition of sex to use for virgin). 132.205.93.88 23:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Because "famous" is a tricky criterion; because "reputedly" lowers the bar to anyone, living or dead, who has ever had a rumour published about them that xe is a virgin; and because this doesn't address the problem of living people. The three lists that I gave, in contrast, do not rely upon fame and rumour; and exclude living people.  A list of virgins in religious mythology is verifiable by citing analyses of the mythology; and such virgins are not living people.  A list of virgins in works of fiction is verifiable by citing analyses of the literature; and by definition such virgins are not living people.  A list of historical figures who were virgins at the times of their deaths is verifiable by citing historical analyses; and again by definition such virgins are not living people.  In all three cases, if there's a reliable source that is cited, the person is on the list.  In no case do we worry about Hillary Duff or Britney Spears, and in no case do we have to argue about who is "famous" and what "reputedly" means.  If you want to list non-virgins such as Elizabeth I of England, then you are into the territory that should be covered by list of historical figures nicknamed "virgin", not by any sort of "list of virgins" at all. Uncle G 09:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep offbeat but valid topic per hateless. Sectioned list works fine. Could use a longer intro and more footnotes. --JJay 16:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per hateless. Support a renaming of the article as well since "List of virgins" is slightly ambiguous.  Silensor 17:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see it relevant to an encyclopedia. Difficult to verify does not mean do not start an article.
 * Delete per UncleG's excellent reasoning above. The title itself is inaccurate. Z iggurat 00:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't imagine this being in any reference work of any kind. Also in one sense this is the third attempt at delete. However the first one in 2004 was withdrawn.--T. Anthony 11:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. We cannot, cannot, cannot have an article that speculates on the sex lives of living persons. And we can't really verify the dead ones. If we allow any "reputedly"-type language, the article becomes a dumping ground for useless celebrity gossip. wikipediatrix 13:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My goodness, hopeless to keep this up to date, accurate, and complete. Delete ++Lar: t/c 20:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, it is unverifiable, gossip, unimportant, potentially libelous (saying a 50-year-old living person is a virgin is not complementary to many people, especially Western men) and original research (there is almost always conflict among sources about such things, so you have to chose who to believe). -- Kjkolb 23:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article will be too much effort, to keep the page in accordance with WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:NPOV, than it will ever be worth, especially considering the questionable encyclopedic value of listing hisorical figures who were virgins.-- danntm T C 01:34, 6 August 2006 (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.