Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Heterosexuals

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 of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower ^háblame 14:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Heterosexuals

This page is not really a re-creation of "List of people who have publicly denied being gay", but it is essentially the same topic, which has already been judged unencyclopedic and voted for deletion. I can do no better than quote Sherool's nomination, in which he said "I feel this is non-encyclopedic, and while the persons are notable in the vast majority of cases their mere denial of being gay is not. It is basically a list of people who have responded in a certain way to rumors or sometimes (joking) questions from the press. Verifiable and factual yes, but not encyclopedic or particularly helpful. I can't think of any use for such a list...To sum up: If this information belong anywhere at all it's the 'trivia' section of the respective persons articles, not on a list of every famous person who's ever said 'I'm not gay' in public. " Delete. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Could someone explain why it is ok for there to be a list of Famous Homosexuals but not a list of Famous Heterosexuals? grazon 00:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Did you create this article in order to illustrate a point, for example to demonstrate that Wikipedia does not give equal treatment to homosexuality and heterosexuality? Dpbsmith (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Dpbsmith. This is essentially listcruft in the same vein as the recently deleted list of "men famous for being well endowed." I would argue that this list isn't even WP:V in the strictest sense. If is were titled "List of Famous People who have Claimed to be Heterosexual" it would be verifiable, but a person saying they are heterosexual in an interview doesn't necessarily make it so. Even retitled though it is of dubious encyclopedia value.--Isotope23 02:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Move to its correct title List of people who have denied being gay and then delete it. ♠DanMS 03:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Long as we have a list of famous homosexuals this article has every right to be here too. grazon 03:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Articles do not have rights. Articles created to make a point should be deleted. --DavidConrad 06:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Well, we have a list of deaf people; so does that mean we need to have a list of hearing people? If we have a list of amputees, do we need a "list of people who still have all four limbs"? Such lists would be very long, boring and pointless. (Note: I am not equating homosexuality with disability; it's just an example.) HollyAm 04:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • If some one feels the need to compile such a list why not? grazon 05:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Set complements have inclusion criteria that are too broad to be useful. Uncle G 17:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The topic is unencyclopedic in its essence. NatusRoma 08:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

These people are both famous enough to be in the nndb and heterosexual hence this is not a "indiscriminate collection of information". grazon 17:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• • That isn't an accurate representation of what Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information means. I suggest you read it again. Xoloz 22:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G. Xoloz 22:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as preposterous listcruft, and violation of WP:POINT. MCB 00:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per MCB. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 14:25, 3 November 2005 (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.