Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ex-gay people

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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of ex-gay people

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

The list overlaps with the People section in Ex-gay movement and is therefore unnecessary. To the extent there are names here that aren't there, they can be merged. To the extent they don't belong in the other article, the list is barely notable anyway, so it can be deleted anyway. Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are 16 names on that list, and nearly half of that are redirects to varius organisations. Sources are questionable too.--В и к и в и н д T a L k 01:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The lists are completely different. This list is ex-gay people, and Ex-gay_movement#People_associated_with_the_ex-gay_movement is not restricted by orientation. There are numerous LGBT lists and articles that have overlap.
This would set a precedent for the merging and eventual disappearance of List of LGBT people and similar lists into dozens of articles all over wikipedia. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Ex-gay movement. Any text that could be brought into the list article would be a repeat of that which is already present at Ex-gay movement. Binksternet (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dividing one list into two pieces so it can appear as two lists in two places does nothing to add information, but it does double the exposure. The only goal furthered by double exposure is advocacy, which should not occur in Wikipedia. Ornithikos (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your comment means you and I are in agreement. There should not be two similar articles. There is no chance that this list article can be saved because if prose is added in an attempt to save it, it will create a duplicate of Ex-gay movement. Binksternet (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:N and WP:RS. Moreover, such a list is useful for readers. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 03:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ex-gay movement, since the set "Wiki-notable people who claim they've become straight" is contained pretty much in its entirety within the set "Wiki-notable people telling other gays to try to become straight." In the course of the merge, the large number of non-notable people in this list, as well as those not actually "associated with the ex-gay movement" (Camille Paglia, for example) should be removed. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comments below prompted me to take a closer look at the sourcing of this list, and it's extremely poor. I reaffirm that this should not be a separate article, and will take a little time to think it over and consider if deletion might be better. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a potential BLP minefield. The whole notion of "ex-gay" is a POV religious concept, in my view. Sexuality isn't a dichotomy, it's a range of shades. "Bi-sexual advocates of heterosexuality" is probably the scientifically-correct phrasing, whether one thinks homosexuality is "inborn" or a "choice" or some combination of these things. So "Ex-gay people" is POV and it's a mess for BLP — which is ample reason to can this without merger. Carrite (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a BLP disaster waiting to happen. I don't see that this list adds much encyclopedic value - notable individuals can just as easily be mentioned at Ex-gay movement, which is sort of a niche topic to begin with. It's impossible to monitor it constantly; it's a subject that draws partisan editing; and it has the potential to cause serious real-life harm. Creating walled gardens of redundant articles on low-profile but BLP-sensitive topics is a recipe for disaster. MastCell ^Talk 04:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - BLP problems, unreliable sources. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 07:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and WP:RS and lack of context. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unreliable sources, total overlap with Ex-gay movement article, and potential WP:BLP issues. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carrite, Knowzilla, ArtifexMayhem, Dominus Vobuisdu, and nom. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This list of names says nothing about the ex-gay movement itself. It is a collection of implicit testimonials, often with links to advocacy sites. It also risks objection from anyone whose name should not have appeared, or should not appear any longer. Ornithikos (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I struggle to AGF on the creation and maintenance of this list of names. It and its associated non-RS-at-best sources appear to be little more than an attempt to manufacture the appearance of legitimacy for scientifically dubious/discredited ideas like Conversion therapy. That is on top of issues with BLP and N. The "keep" arguments appear to boil down to a fatuous "I like it, so it should stay" and a ginned-up attempt at conjuring the spectre of some nebulous (but ooooh, so indubitably scary!) "precedent" under which vast swaths of lists would have to be purged from Wikipedia. Fortunately for the clarity of this present discussion, the notion of this kind of "precedent" is inapposite per WP:NOTLAW. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C15:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 13:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no valid reason given for deletion. List is a valid sub-article of Ex-gay movement. BLP concerns are addressed through routine maintenance. William Bradshaw (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC) This account was blocked as an abusive sockpuppet. MastCell ^Talk 23:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Er…respectfully, I submit that given your newness (124 edits since registration last month) and apparent combative difficulty conforming to Wikipedia principles, it might be less a case of there being "no valid reason" and more a case of your not perceiving or not agreeing with the valid reasons that have been put forth. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough for its own article. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a statement, not an argument. WP:ITSNOTABLE describes pretty well why you need to explain yourself more if you wish your comments to be taken into consideration. NW (Talk) 13:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lousy sources; BLP magnet. PhGustaf (talk) 03:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - BLP problems, unreliable sources, WP:N and WP:RS, conservative fringe extremist anti-gay attack article. Herp Derp (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of these are non-notable with their blue links merely being redirects to various non-biographical articles. Also, listing people who only once did identify as "ex-gay" seems to be troublesome WP:NPOV-wise. List of people who were once drunk? FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2011 (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.