Deletion of List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people (5th nomination)

Comment: Clearly of interest to users and worth maintaining. I don't see how it fails any of the tests described under . As for , that standard uses this example: "Special care must be taken when adding living persons to lists based on religion or on sexual orientation." Thus a list based on sexual orientation is anticipated. This particular list might at some point be reorganized -- some subcategorization might make it more useful, but it's well worth keeping
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO||WP:SALAT)

Comment: Article/subarticles appear to be reliably sourced and satisfy #List_articles; any problematic individual entries can be fixed or removed as applicable.  There are lists of gay men only, lesbian women only, and Transgender people only on wiki so why not one for bisexual people as well? Deleting this article is bisexual erasure and shows biphobia.  — Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/71.185.163.122|71.185.163.122
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST)

Comment: per all the above, verging on . Highly notable, verifiable group, lots of nominations in the past
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: List items are very well sourced and notable, as established by reliable third-party secondary sources. The list is relevant and useful, as evidenced by the number of visits. It conforms to all of the requirements of . BLP and vandalism not a major problem because of the rigorous sourcing and the fact that the article is very well patrolled. I see no conflict with either ,  or . Also agree that the good faith of the nomimator is questionable. Because of the timing, this certainly seems like a retaliatory move in response to the recent deletions of List of Ex-gay people and
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST||WP:SALAT||WP:IINFO||WP:DIR)

Comment: Fails  and .  There are tens of thousands of famous LGBTs. Thus tens of thousands of potential members of the list. People are coming out of the closet in droves. Heck if you read Kinsey, everyone has a little homosexual in them. Anyone who denies the success of LGBTs is a homophobe and should be blocked. SALAT states "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value." And the broad nature of "Every famous LGBT" makes the list indiscriminate. On the other hand categories would handle this quite nicely and is a far preferable option to this massive, gigantic list.&ndash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:SALAT||WP:IINFO)

Comment: per  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST||WP:POINT)

Comment: five times this has been kept, and I can't see |that consensus has changed. It's watched by lots of editors, sometimes protected, and therefore the BLP danger is not very high. It's highly useful for our core readership - students in high schools, colleges, and universities, to have such lists in one easy place
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Consensus (WP:CCC)

Comment: This article is encyclopedic and appropriate so long as the entries continue to be well references, and it appears to comply with 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST)

Comment: This is, in my view, a bad faith nomination. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_ex-gay_people|One poorly sourced list is deleted three weeks ago, and nominator is probably angry and feels that there is a great unjustice in the world. But, this list is well sourced, and satisfy . In adition,  is weak argument and doesn't apply to this list. If there is a problem with sourcing of individual entries it can be fixed or removed (like AV3000 has already said). But I don't see that sourcing is big problem (and even people who voted for deletion don't mention that sourcing is problem). Maybe nominator and some who voted for deletion should read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST||WP:DIRECTORY)

Comment: Sexual orientation is noteworthy and the page has attracted 39,000 hits last month, so it is of interest. I agree to some degree with the nominator that it is unencyclopaedic bit since we have these lists and many others they may as well be kept. WP is riddled with lists. It seems that some Wikipedians have a, ahh, fetish with lists. Now I am making no judgement here but as editors we must put aside any bias against topics with which we are uncomfortable. It is an issue and the creation (pun?) of Conservapedia is a case in point. I disagree with the nominator that the article come under the purview of . None of the points there are applicable to these lists
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:DIRECTORY)