Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT-owned companies

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of LGBT-owned companies[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of unclear value with significant maintainability problems. As constituted, this is a list of mostly non-notable companies that don't have Wikipedia articles at all -- just three of 28 companies in the "name" column are blue links -- and the possibility of attracting more and more non-notable entries is pretty much limitless, as I've already thought of at least a dozen more (not all notable) LGBT-owned companies I know about that haven't been listed here at all within less than ten minutes of finding the page, which means there are probably hundreds or even thousands that could potentially be added with a modicum of research. And on top of that, it's also just begging for abuse by vandals who want to make trouble.
This is the kind of open-ended and potentially infinite list that would absolutely have to have an "only companies that have Wikipedia articles to link to" cap applied to it on Wikipedia is not a directory grounds, but it just isn't warranted at all if there are only three companies with Wikipedia articles to link to in it. Bearcat (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sexuality and gender, and Lists. Bearcat (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's unwise for us to host this article. If extremists, terrorists or other criminals target these businesses and do them any kind of harm, our ethical position would be terrible. We should leave this to LGBT advocacy organizations who will have the proper experience and knowledge and the right protections and policies to defend the businesses affected.—S Marshall T/C 09:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For one thing, this is a list of "trivial coverage". Per WP:ORGDEPTH "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability", also noting what is considered trivial coverage: "of telephone numbers, addresses, directions, of office locations, branches, franchises, or subsidiaries, of employees, officers, directors, owners, or shareholders, of product or service offerings." This list comes across as a directory for those wanting to patronize LGBT ownership .... or as noted above, those who wish to do harm to the LGBT population. — Maile (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for soapboxing. TheodoreIndiana (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I assume good faith about the creation of the article, but this is something that shouldn't be categorized under the same criteria as most shopping-related articles, and the one-source to a listicle isn't acceptable. Nate • (chatter) 21:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NOTDIR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2023 (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.