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 redirect to Sexual orientation. Rereading all of the comments, this redirect has a majority of opinion in favor of it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC) reply

List of sexual orientations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)

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

My PROD was challenged, so coming over here. I put in the prod Same reason as List of gender identities Prod reason: {{ tq|Unreferenced and appears to peter out half way through. . . (proposed by Mean as custard)}} in Special:Diff/1089462404. It was also PROD endorsed by Courtesy ping: TenPoundHammer. Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos 01:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete as redundant to Sexual identity#Identities. Anything covered in RS and not listed there can be added. The list here is unsourced and includes terms that are not sexual orientations, like "polyamorous", which is a type of relationship and not a sexual orientation any more than "monogamous", and "queer", which is an umbrella term. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I do prefer deletion as it seems an implausible search term, but I would also support redirection to another article, preferably Sexual identity#Identities, as a secondary choice. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Lists. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 06:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep I would say the list is useful for someone in our part of the world who don't have much info on this front. Sure references are missing but they can be sourced and added. Amitized ( talk) 03:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply

See WP:ITSUSEFUL. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply

There are some pages within Wikipedia that are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument. While lists aren't explicitly mentioned here, WP:NLIST supports the idea that lists can be kept because they are useful: Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.. Elli ( talk | contribs) 16:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I fail to see how this list could be justified. Not only does it not have reliable sources to support it, but the term "Sexual orientation" means "A person's identity in relation to the gender or genders to which they are sexually attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, etc.". According to Wikipedia's article on sexual orientation: "Sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender. These attractions are generally subsumed under heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality, while asexuality (the lack of sexual attraction to others) is sometimes identified as the fourth category.... Sexual preference may also suggest a degree of voluntary choice, whereas sexual orientation is not a choice." (emphasis mine)
  Also, according to this list, "Queer" is a sexual orientation -- but it is not. "Queer" is an umbrella term used today for anything that isn't related to heterosexuality and biological male and female humans. "Bicurious" (which is correctly written as "Bi-curious") is not a sexual orientation -- it's a curiosity (otherwise known as being interested in learning about something).
  Wikipedia already has an article about Sexual identity, with a bunch of them described and sourced. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Sexual identity#Identities Sexual orientation as preferred WP:ATD ~ Kvng ( talk) 13:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Sexual identity#Identities. It does seem rather redundant when we already have a page that covers such material with sources. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Sexual identity has a hatnote that states Not to be confused with sexual orientation or gender identity, so a redirect to that article does not appear to be a reasonable WP:ATD. I suggest a redirect to the Sexual orientation article, to preserve the editing history and so a list with navigational, developmental and/or informational purposes can be created when someone has time to conduct a WP:BEFORE for this notable topic. Beccaynr ( talk) 23:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Regardless of the hatnote, it is clear from the text that the concepts are closely related. And really, it's more that this article is mistitled - what is listed here are sexual identities, as evidenced by "gay" and "lesbian" being separate and in addition to "homosexual" when these are all the same sexual orientation (homosexuality). Crossroads ^-talk- 04:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC) reply

But the article title is List of sexual orientations, it is a notable topic (a basic WP:BEFORE seems to confirm this) and there is a plausible redirect based on the title. It appears to create an original research or at least an accuracy issue to try to redirect a Sexual orientation topic to the Sexual identity article when the Sexual identity article specifically disclaims this. I do not think the unsourced items in the current article should guide what to do with this list, and I think we should use the article title as a guide, and allow further development after there is time for research. Redirecting to the Sexual orientation article could also help guide future development of the list article. For example, when I revised the List of gender identities, I removed unsourced items and added sourced items, and a similar process would appear to be needed here. Beccaynr ( talk) 04:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Sexual orientations and sexual identities are not one and the same. Sexual orientation is inborn. You're born heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual (with bi presenting in many forms: a little, a lot, infrequently, regularly, with preferences for male or female, without preferences for either sex). Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC) reply

According to Youth Sexualities: Public Feelings and Contemporary Cultural Politics at 272 "Whereas the list of sexual orientations is long, including graysexual, asexual, scoliosexual, demisexual, pansexual, polysexual, and all of the mentioned prefixes with the suffix "-romantic", the vocabulary for gender...", and there is discussion in the chapter about how various ideas about gender identity can inform the list of sexual orientations. Something similar appears to be discussed here: We're Here and We're Queer: Sexual Orientation and Sexual Fluidity Differences Between Bisexual and Queer Women ("Although early definitions of bisexuality may have been predominantly binary (i.e., attracted to women and men), in recent years there has been a move toward a more “queer” understanding of bisexuality (e.g., attraction to more than one gender beyond women and men).") Similarly, in a chapter of Critical Disability Theory: Essays in Philosophy, Politics, Policy, and Law at 117 ("Given the initiative's specific list of sexual orientations that would no longer be covered by the ordinance and the societal assumption that there are only two sexes, it is relatively safe to conclude that the creators of the initiative did not intend this outcome.") Based on my initial WP:BEFORE, this seems to be a clearly notable but obviously complicated topic that should be handled with care; I just do not have the time and focus right now to try to research and develop this list beyond trying to advocate for a redirect that appears to make the most sense based on the article title. But I do think a well-developed introduction could help this list have a navigational, development and informational purpose, including because even based on the previous research from the List of gender identities article, social media companies have been creating such lists, so it appears to be a viable search term. Beccaynr ( talk) 13:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete or redirect per Pyxis Solitary's statement. Sahaib ( talk) 16:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Sexual orientation. It's trivial to find sources that handle this subject as a grouping, but the status quo is not right for mainspace. I would change my vote to keep if someone put in some WP:HEY. I can find sources about the difference between orientation and identity, but I can also find sources that treat the two as synonymous. As long as we have articles on both and have them defined as different, we shouldn't surprise readers by redirecting them to pages that immediately contradict they link they took to get there. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 18:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC) reply

  The article is about a notable subject but you want it deleted unless it is improved before this AfD closes. What policy justify such a deletion? ~ Kvng ( talk) 04:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

  I don't want it deleted. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 12:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Redirect as suggested. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Sexual orientation. Apart from the sourcing issues some of the terms mentioned are arguably not sexual orientations, or at least aren't described as such in their article (e.g. Queer, Polyamory, Aromantic). Of the ones which are sexual orientations the Sexual orientation discusses all of them in more depth, so the list doesn't add much anyway. Sexual orientation and Sexual identity aren't the same thing, so I don't think it would be a good idea to redirect to Sexual identity. Hut 8.5 12:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• In light of the below comment I think the title is a reasonable search term, which means a redirect is appropriate even if there is no useful edit history. Hut 8.5 18:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete (without a redirect) per Pyxis's excellent statement. A list of four entries which are discussed at the actual article on the topic is utterly pointless. There is no editing history worthy of preservation of content of salvaging. A redirect would be pointless and ATD doesn't apply. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 23:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• 'Redirect as per. scope_creep ^Talk 01:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete or redirect to Sexual orientation. TolWol56 ( talk) 21:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Along with Keep and Delete, a redirect has been strongly suggested, either to Sexual orientation or to Sexual identity#Identities. Is there a strong argument for one redirect over another?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC) reply

• A redirect to the Sexual orientation article seems supported by the WP:R#ASTONISH guideline, i.e. Wikipedia follows the " principle of least astonishment"; after following a redirect, the reader's first question is likely to be: "Hang on ... I wanted to read about this. Why has the link taken me to that?" Make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place. Redirecting to another topic, such as Sexual identity, appears to be contrary to this guideline, including due to the hatnote on the Sexual identity article. Beccaynr ( talk) 03:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Sexual identity#Identities. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 21:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Sexual orientation per Beccaynr, Hut 8.5, Scope creep, Firefangledfeathers, and Kvng. Disagree entirely with op, Crossroads, 35.139.154.158, and Pyxis Solitary. Agree in part with Amitized and Maxx-♥. The page should be a redirect, nothing more and nothing less. Deleting it would contribute to existing bias on here and further cause those outside Wikipedia (or even those who edit here) to see Wikipedia as against LGBTQ people, even though it obviously isn't. Historyday01 ( talk) 22:00, 14 June 2022 (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.