Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Gay icons

Category:Gay icons[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 14:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current totals D-11 K-8 L/d-7 (for those interested) 11:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The category is contentious and superfluous at best. There is no definitive way, in my opinion, to concretely qualify one as a "gay icon". As the category stands now, there are over 200 biographical articles placed under this category, nearly all of which have little-to-nothing to do with the gay community. This category should be deleted and the articles should not be moved into any of the parent categories if they are not there already. Hall Monitor 19:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previous CFDs here (no consensus from 2004 August 12 listing, keep from 2004 October 17 listing). -- Rick Block (talk) 16:56, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I'm beginning to wonder if maybe it would be worthwhile to limit the number of times per four month period or per year or whatever a category or article can be nominated for deletion. It seems like every other week this category or some other LGBT-related category is nominated. (This isn't a criticism of your comments or nomination, Hall Monitor, just an observation and a little speculation.) -Seth Mahoney 19:30, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

You might want to drop by Wikipedia:Vfd renomination limits. -Splash 20:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC) fixed red link ∞Who ?¿? 21:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was a proposal along these lines with regard to the GNAA article being nominated for deletion 6 times, but I do not believe a consensus was ever achieved. Hall Monitor 21:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There were several strong objections to any strict limit, because it would allow for gaming the system either way around. It is a rare case for an article to be re-nominated, and those that are tend to be well influenced by the previous case. R adiant _>|< 09:23, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Comment I am inclined to agree that a portion of the articles may not belong, however, I do think that some of the biographies of those who support gay/lesbian rights should be kept in this cat, because they are noted for being "gay icons". Assuming that's what it means. ∞Who ?¿? 21:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup I think there is a clear definition of what a gay icon is, and if the ones can be weeded out that are clearly not, it would be fine. Remember, mis-categorization is not a category problem. ∞Who ?¿? 11:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there is a way to define what qualifies one as a "gay icon". Hall Monitor 21:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First of all, the fact this category has appeared on Rowan Atkinson, Ashanti (singer) and many other non-gay icon-related articles prompted me to get involved in cleaning it up. You remove about 10, and another 20 get added. Some are backed up, but the category simply isn't needed. I think this should go. Cleaning it up has been tried by several people; We all failed. Hedley 21:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the category is somewhat subjective, there are some clear gay icons, people who owe the success or longevity of their careers in large part to gays and lesbians (and they will admit it - Cher, Madonna, etc.) Sure there are some names that don't belong, but those can be trimmed. I've trimmed some of them myself. To delete all this work while keeping so many other worthless categories seems strange to me. --JamesB3 23:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup The category isn't unnecessary, just overpopulated. Most of the articles in this category do not actually state anything about their being a gay icon, and, as a result, shouldn't be there. It should be a rule for this category: Do not include articles that contain nothing about their iconic status in this category. (I apologise for the overuse of 'category' here.) --JB Adder | Talk 23:59, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Delete overly arbitrary. A well annotated list would be far more useful. - SimonP 00:55, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Category is clearly a matter of opinion, not fact, so it breaches the neutrality rule. Osomec 02:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as arbitrary, possibly listify. R adiant _>|< 09:23, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
keep Far more useful than yet another stupid, ugly unusable list. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 16:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (perhaps relistify) - Fails to satisfy (from Wikipedia:Categorization) If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:56, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, possibly listify (a list can provide more context). Pavel Vozenilek 18:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the category is too "fuzzy" and not based in fact. —RaD Man (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arbitrary. It's better to use a list where the place of each "gay icon" in the gay subculture can be motivated, exemplified and put in some kind of context. Uppland 19:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV, arbitrary. - Aaron Hill 00:28, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Delete Inherently POV and unverifiable. Giving it more time, just means ever more celebs will be added to it; and worse it sets a precident for every "Group X" to have "Category:Group X Icons". --rob 03:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup Lots of people have been labeled one, and that labeling is sure verifiable, too. -- AlexR 10:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the comments I've seen seem to justify the need for a category, that could not be served by having a list. To that end, I added all the names from this category to Gay icon and renamed the article List of gay icons. I did this because I think people put a fair amount of work into making the category, and I don't like deleting peoples' work if it has the potential to become something worthwhile. All the articles can be linked by mentioning that the person is a Gay icon. I think this article is similar to Films that have been considered the greatest ever. Lists and articles about POV classifications can be made into something legit. I'm skeptical that the same can be done with a category. Too much explanation is needed for it to be just a category tag. It is important to explain why and how someone is considered a gay icon and include a credible source. That can be done with a link within text. -- Samuel Wantman 11:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per my votes in the previous CFD's. BlankVerse ∅ 13:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to delete: it doesn't seem POV to me unless there is controversy over individual gay icon status, which can be easily resolved by removal. However, it's not hard to verify (check gay press) to determine what is and isn't considered a gay icon. Much nicer than a nasty old list. Leave the Gay icon page for discussion of the itneresting phenomena of gay icons. Axon (talk|contribs) 14:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Listify per Samuel Wantman. Jonathunder 18:57, 2005 August 1 (UTC)
Keep. There are some pages that definitely belong in the category, so I don't see it as inherently POV. Individual article's categorization might be, but they should be explained in the articles like any other categorization. --Mairi 21:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And while we are at it, can we have a vote to delete the word listify? Or rather, in Wikipedia language, should we votify the issue by listifying opinions to enable use to decisionify the issue and communify the information those who implementify the decision? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Rangerdude 03:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify per Samuel Wantman. siafu 14:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Listify, to see Jtdirl's head explode. Actually, delete because of Samuel Wantman's comment: It is important to explain why and how someone is considered a gay icon and include a credible source. --Kbdank71 18:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Listify as per Samuel Wantman. — Sebastian (talk) 19:12, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete do not listify. ComCat 04:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Revamp listing to make it clearer and only including openly gay people. Current version is too confusing. CrazyC83 05:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be gay to be a gay icon. Many gay icons are straight (Barbra Streisand, Bette Midler, etc.) --JamesB3 06:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep then. It is a useful listing to some degree, but extremely prone to NPOV disputes. CrazyC83 21:26, 4 August 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

(For an archive of previous discussions, see: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Gay icons (2004))