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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/No longer identified[edit]

very difficult to maintain, to source and generally not a good article, as the criteria is too broad. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing debate: S (Society topics). ◄Zahakiel ► 15:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not an encyclopedic article. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 11:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to something like List of ex-gay people. Sourcing is not a problem as only those people who have publicly stated that they were once gay and now no longer are, or people who self-identify as "ex-gay," should be added. Otto4711 11:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just begging to be a BLP minefield, practically impossible to maintain in an encyclopedia way. If we must create a List of ex-gay people, that would be preferable, but only if rigorously sourced. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lists including living people with unqualified inclusion criteria are just a way to beg for trouble Alf^Photoman 14:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, if the inclusion criterion is "person said they were gay and now they say they aren't" and there's a reliable source that says so, what's the problem? Otto4711 16:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

are you going to include my former barber? Alf^Photoman 20:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does your former barber have sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article, and are there reliable sources for his/her statements? Then, yeah, I'd include your barber. Otto4711 20:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your list does not specify that it is about people included in WP, besides, who is going to control if everyone IS being on the list... as I said uncontrollable. Alf^Photoman 22:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my list. I had no idea it existed before finding this AFD. Nor do I particularly care if the list is restricted to people with articles or not but this sort of list in my experience tends to end up with mostly bluelinks anyway. As for the list being "controllable," it does not appear that there has been any great rush to add people to it at all, let alone add people inappropriately. And if people are being added inappropriately, well, that's what editing is supposed to be for. Otto4711 22:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any list on Wikipedia is, by definition, only for people included in WP. This fact doesn't need special attention called to it; it's the very nature of the beast. Bearcat 23:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article due to the problems stated above - I thought that sub-pages in the mainspace weren't allowed, anyway? Arkyan 15:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list is split by alphabet due to its size (A-E, F-J, etc.). I assume whoever started the article was merely following precedent. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATT, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV: Yikes, this is a potential lawsuit just waiting to happen. Per the "aggressive deletion" clause in WP:BLP, I've just deleted out those entries in the article that were unsourced. Quite aside from all of that, what is the attribution, never mind the criteria, for calling some of those people gay/bi, and what is the attribution, never mind the criteria, for declaring any such "no longer identified?" I hear what Otto's saying, but frankly, barring an attribution in print from a reliable source of one of these people saying "I used to be gay but now I'm not," any such citation is garbage. RGTraynor 16:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - potentially a very large/unmaintainable list, not convinced as to encyclopedic value. Oh, and a BLP disaster waiting to happen. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually quite neutral on whether this should exist or not, but I can clarify that the reason it does exist is because people such as David Bowie and Lou Reed kept being added to the main LGB people lists. Every person listed at present is reliably documented as having changed their identification. And Anne Heche is reliably documented as someone who hasn't changed her identification even though she's commonly cited as someone who has. The list is monitored for problematic inclusions, and sources are available for every single name on the list. So there simply isn't any "BLP disaster waiting to happen" here. Accordingly, while I'm not really all that convinced that it's actually necessary, I'm going to say keep if only because the main reason being cited for deletion here is completely out to lunch. Bearcat 18:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. It provides useful information on the public debate as to whether sexual identity is reversible or not. Where else could you find such an article but here, and any errors can be corrected. --MBHiii 22:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And a general comment to those who fear a lawsuit because of this list: I am not an attorney but the last I heard calling someone a heterosexual was not actionable in any court on the planet. Calling someone formerly gay if there's reliable sourcing is not actionable. Otto4711 22:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this a joke? Once gay, always gay.--Sefringle 04:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't provide useful imformation -Apple 22:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, sourced, case studies are used in many public debates - this one is no exception. Note: If the article is kept, it should be renamed. "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors…" (from WP:NAMING) - Wolphii 23:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete and susceptible to BLP. I agree with RGTraynor above. A person has there right to decide how he wishes to be labeled. If this list were limited strictly to those who had publicly announced something to indicate that they wanted this notified, it would be appropriate. I think most people would be just as offended to be put in the wrong category either way. The legal assumption you mention is an assumption of prejudice against homosexuals. I might not even be true now, DGG 04:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that a person's right to choose their own label is modified by actions that they take. Regardless, this list is for people who have publicly announced what label they want. Otto4711 20:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP. Metamagician3000 09:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as List of people formerly identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual --FateClub 16:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The solution to BLP issues is sourcing, not deletion. The subject is surely notable and worthwhile and appropriate for a list. Herostratus 19:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. All people lists and categories are subject to BLP, so why aren't the BLP-ers hurriedly going after those other lists? Hmmm... Compliance with BLP requires sourcing (as per Herostratus) not deletion. Carlossuarez46 20:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per reasons given by Otto4711 and others. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.