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 13:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Same idea as the currently nominated Category:Stalinists, a POV-based labeling cateogry. Delete Andros 1337 21:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Stalinist is sort of a slur, "gay" is a neutral term. Rhobite 21:20, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Ditto. What Rhobite said, basically. Except I wouldn't call Stalinist a slur, either. Both terms are NPOV.
• Delete. I've opposed categories that classify articles by sexual orientation from the beginning. Make list articles if you want that can be annotated, but categories should be kept only to the most objective, unequivocal facts, and what someone's sexuality is hardly counts as unequivocal. Postdlf 22:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as long as only verified actual LGBTs are included, not suspected LGBTs. If I say "your dad is gay", that is a slur. If I say " Elton John is gay", that is a neutral statement of fact. Deco 01:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This "information" is often suspect and very often irrelevant. It doesn't deserve this prominence. It is not disseminated in a spirit of neutrality but rather in a spirit of activism. Oliver Chettle 02:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Oliver on this. -- Kbdank71 13:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, though I wouldn't oppose a category for LGBT activists (as in they're in the news, etc.) but not people who are LGBT. Cburnett 16:06, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, I believe it has a purpose, so long as the notable individual identifies as such. -- Bastique 04:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm changing my vote Keep, I thought about this further, and realize that for the most part, as there exists a GLBT subculture in the world, anyone that publically identifies as such is a member of that subculture. While the terms 'gay' and 'lesbian' are not subjective, it is certainly a self-identifiable. Anyone with the orientation but without that self-identification less is simply a homosexual.
  • Note: I urge the admins to give careful consideration to the results of this vote, and not perform a "delete" maneuver unless a significant amount of people reign in on it. The likelihood of personal bias is too great with topics involving GLBT, and such a small sampling of votes has an easy tendency of being unjust and overly biased. (See above, I've opposed... and disseminated...in spirit of activism) I believe the this category is as valid as one for notable African-Americans or notable Mormans, for that matter.
    • Only those who want to delete it are biased? Pull the other one. Oliver Chettle 02:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, yes. I've never heard of a homophile. Certainly, the GLBT community has support from the outside of it, but you won't convince me that it's due to a bias toward them. And the rest...one cannot be an Anglophile if one is English. It's not so much a bias if it involves one's own culture. -- Bastique 05:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • By the way, the bias article mentions the term Amerocentric as it relates to Americans. This is not so much a view of America itself as much a view of America's relation to the rest of the world. It does not negate my prior statement. -- Bastique 05:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not so certain that the subcategories are necessary, however.-- Bastique 19:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete Pointless. Clutters pages unnecessarily, without adding genuine information. If sexuality is an issue, it should be dealt with in a nuanced way in the text. "Micheangelo = gay" stuff is too dumb an anachronistic for words. -- Wetman 06:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep When we have LGBT org. LGBT compaigners, people identifing themselves as LGBT, the category isn't POV because the people have identified themselves to be in such a group. (assuming of course we only include such people into said category). -- KTC 15:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with original poster -- Hooperbloob 16:04, 30 Apr 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 delete -- Kbdank71 13:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Just to clarify whether the votes above are for keeping the main category, or that and its subcats, I'm going to separate them out:

• Category:LGBT actors
• Category:LGBT artists
• Category:LGBT athletes
• Category:LGBT musicians
• Category:LGBT politicians
• Category:LGBT writers
• Category:LGBT Ancient Greeks

• Delete all as unnecessary subcategorization, per our earlier decisions on Jewish and Italian-American subcategories by occupation. "LGBT Ancient Greeks" is especially silly, because it applies a modern cultural conception of sexuality to an ancient context in which it arguably makes no sense at all. Postdlf 22:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete LGBT Ancient Greeks, for Postdlf's reason, but Keep all others. Deco 01:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all as above Oliver Chettle 02:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. -- Kbdank71 13:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all Cburnett 16:06, Apr 26, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 keep -- Kbdank71 13:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC) reply

The contents of the category are all within the article itself. -- TheBlunderbuss 01:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't even understand what you're trying to say, because the category groups together 6 articles and a subcategory that has 20 articles—are you trying to say that just because all these are linked to from the main AC/DC article that we have no need for a category? I don't see how we'd have any categories left if that were the standard. Postdlf 21:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with Postdlf (also pls see my comment at Category talk:Rock music groups). -- Lochaber 23:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with Postdlf Kappa 00:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Deco 01:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Categories provide a quick menu of links, long articles don't. Oliver Chettle 02:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• KeepOk. I was wrong then. Let's get started on making subcats for other major bands in Rock music groups -- TheBlunderbuss 04:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • No, let's not. Most bands do not need a category of their own, because in general the article on the band will suffice. AC/DC is a good exception to that rule, but please don't make a bunch of near-empty cats for a large number of bands. R adiant _* 09:10, Apr 25, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 keep -- Kbdank71 13:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC) reply

The contents of the category are all within the article itself. -- TheBlunderbuss 01:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Major band with numerous independent articles. This is what categories were made for. Postdlf 22:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with Postdlf. -- Lochaber 23:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with Postdlf Kappa 00:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Deco 01:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I'm afraid my own personal bias is too clear on this one.

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.

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 keep -- Kbdank71 13:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC) reply

The contents of the category are all within the article itself. -- TheBlunderbuss 01:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Major band with numerous independent articles. This is what categories were made for. Postdlf 22:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with Postdlf. -- Lochaber 23:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, categories are useful to group related articles. Kappa 00:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Deco 01:24, 25 Apr 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 keep -- Kbdank71 13:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC) reply

Many articles that would belong in this category are already listed under Category:Orders and decorations LordAmeth 20:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep - not all orders and decorations are knighthoods - this forms a natural subcategory of Category:Orders and decorations. Grutness| ^hello? 01:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep As above. Oliver Chettle 02:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep, subcategory to Category:Orders and decorations, and actually populate the thing. -- KTC 15:21, 30 Apr 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.