Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT couples

Closing administrator's determination rationale
If adding commentary to this page, please do it in a separate section, do not breakup my comments here. First a tally of the !votes:


 * Delete
 * 1) David Fuchs (9 edits)
 * 2) Koweja (3 edits)
 * 3) Neil (8 edits)
 * 4) 23skidoo (2 edits)
 * 5) Josquius
 * 6) Nick Dowling
 * 7) Bearian'sBooties
 * 8) Queerudite (3 edits)
 * 9) DGG
 * 10) Edison (4 edits)
 * 11) Lasalle202 (5 edits)


 * Keep
 * 1) MCB
 * 2) Doug
 * 3) The Transhumanist (4 edits)
 * 4) Capitalistroadster (2 edits)
 * 5) Terraxos (3 edits)
 * 6) Fireplace (2 edits)
 * 7) Casliber (2 edits)
 * 8) Allstarecho (3 edits)
 * 9) Benjiboi (11 edits)
 * 10) Dev920
 * 11) SatyrTN
 * 12) Torc2 (11 edits)
 * 13) The Librarian (6 edits)

The "keeps" argued that the list was sourced and referenced (or that this is in progress), met WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N. They said that the WP:NOT argument did not apply because the list only contained notable couples, and items on the list aren't "loosely associated". Mentions were made as to the notability of the list itself, in the context of today's political events. They said that it was consistent with WP:LIST and WP:Notability (people). They said that WP:BLP issues should be dealt with at editor discretion, not by deleting the list itself. They said they support the list having strict inclusion criteria and sourcing requirements, and indicated that this would be handled by editors.
 * Discounted
 * 1) Jerry (4 non-participatory edits)
 * 2) SineBot (3 non-participatory edits)
 * 3) Mandsford (2 edits) (comment objecting to delrev/relist)

The deletes called the list Listcruft. They said that is was potentially slanderous as there are no sources, and cautioned that WP:BLP was an ongoing concern for this kind of list. They cited WP:NOT, and said that LGBT couples has no article. They said the scope of the list was too broad to ever be complete. Some said it was difficult to manage the list objectively. One said it was redundant to List of LGBT people. One said the list was trivia. One said "couple" was too difficult to define.

Many of the concerns raised by the deletes could potentially be handled by editors establishing and maintaining strict criteria for the list. This and the strength of argument by the keeps and the division of the participants leads me to determine this as a close call between "no consensus" and "keep". Since both are keep closures, and WP:Deletion states that benefit of the doubt goes to keep, I have decided accordingly. JERRY talk contribs 02:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)