192:(the above basis for this deletion vote) states that " there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic." Secondly, this article is not "hardly maintainable", and does, in fact, list information about when and where some people on the list came out publicly; if not, it encourages their biographic articles to do so. Thirdly, this article isn't "outing gay people"; it has been designed to ensure that a distinction is made between those confirmed as gay and those otherwise debated to be, with each section beginning with a proper explanation. --
225:
72:
an indiscriminate collection of information. Another example of what should be a
Category and not an Article. Also the list is hardly maintainable and involves lots of speculation. Sure, have an article about outing gay people and the controversy that surrounds that, could be interesting, but a list
294:- unencyclopedic and overly politicized. Many of the entries are unsourced & it appears that they are being listed here to promote non-mainstream theories that historical figures were gay or lesbian.
92:. The nominator is not familiar with the article which is carefully maintained. It is not "an indiscriminate collection" and does not rely on speculation. Lists have a place in encyclopedias. -
216:
though I discovered this was in afd because I need to delete/merge/undelete the entire history... Anyway there is a lot of work that has gone into this list, and it's very useful. --
86:
If you have a list of Famous
African-Decendend people who where born that way then that eleminates the A listing of blue-eyed people, after all, we were born that way also." comment.
105:
204:-- This appears to be a carefully maintained article full of useful information. And it is far more effective and useful as a list, rather than as a category.
63:
310:
298:
286:
272:
260:
240:
228:
208:
196:
180:
168:
154:
145:
112:
96:
77:
57:
268:. This list has been very meticulously picked over and examined for accuracy. It is indeed a useful counter-part to the main article.
17:
318:. If this is included, then why not an article on "A listing of blue-eyed people, after all, we were born that way also."
139:
331:
36:
330:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
236:
This is a useful encyclopedic list that has strong research value and has been well and carefully maintained.
256::) this is not an article. There is no need to delete it however. Just make it a list or a category.
151:
74:
93:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
224:
205:
307:
295:
217:
52:
165:
121:
281:
237:
189:
69:
177:
257:
109:
269:
193:
49:
104:— appears encyclopedic; I'm voting to keep pending the outcome of
324:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
120:
Another thinly-veiled attack on the homosexual identity.→ →
220:
150:
Only a thin-skinned person would even think that. --
106:
Knowledge:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
188:for many reasons. Firstly, the second point under
334:). No further edits should be made to this page.
176:but limit to 20th- and 21st-century figures. -
8:
64:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people
7:
24:
73:like this is hardly encyclopedic
223:
164:too general to be useful IMHO.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
311:18:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
299:05:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
287:02:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
273:10:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
261:07:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
241:04:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
229:17:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
209:12:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
197:05:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
181:01:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
169:01:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
155:17:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
146:00:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
113:23:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
97:20:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
78:20:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
58:23:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
44:The result of the debate was
306:. Interesting and useful.
351:
280:, as ExRat and others. ·
327:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
190:What Knowledge is not
162:Categorify/Delete
342:
329:
227:
143:
136:
131:
128:
34:
350:
349:
345:
344:
343:
341:
340:
339:
338:
332:deletion review
325:
142:
137:
134:
129:
122:
67:
55:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
348:
346:
337:
336:
320:
319:
313:
301:
289:
275:
263:
243:
231:
211:
199:
183:
171:
159:
158:
157:
138:
115:
99:
87:
66:
61:
53:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
347:
335:
333:
328:
322:
321:
317:
314:
312:
309:
305:
302:
300:
297:
293:
290:
288:
285:
284:
279:
276:
274:
271:
267:
264:
262:
259:
255:
251:
247:
244:
242:
239:
235:
232:
230:
226:
222:
219:
215:
212:
210:
207:
203:
200:
198:
195:
191:
187:
184:
182:
179:
175:
172:
170:
167:
163:
160:
156:
153:
149:
148:
147:
141:
132:
127:
126:
119:
116:
114:
111:
107:
103:
100:
98:
95:
91:
88:
85:
82:
81:
80:
79:
76:
71:
65:
62:
60:
59:
56:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
326:
323:
315:
303:
291:
282:
277:
265:
253:
249:
245:
233:
213:
201:
185:
173:
161:
124:
123:
117:
101:
89:
83:
68:
45:
43:
31:
28:
206:Skeezix1000
308:Voyager640
296:Rangerdude
250:Categorify
166:Borisblue
283:Katefan0
238:Jliberty
254:Listify
178:Acjelen
94:Willmcw
316:Delete
292:Delete
258:Sethie
218:Francs
70:WP:NOT
270:ExRat
248:and *
194:Saaga
130:Young
50:Owen×
16:<
304:Keep
278:Keep
266:KEEP
246:Keep
234:Keep
221:2000
214:Keep
202:Keep
186:Keep
174:Keep
140:talk
118:Keep
108:. —
102:Keep
90:Keep
84:Keep
46:KEEP
252:or
152:Bob
110:RJH
75:Bob
144:}
48:.
135:ł
133:{
125:R
54:☎
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.