Deletion of List of LGBT couples

Comment: providing sufficient reliable sources are provided for every single item on the list to satisfy the demands of . I think this is clearly a notable and encyclopaedic topic, and one quite relevant to modern society and politics; and most of the couples listed are notable in their own right (like Elton John and David Furnish). Obviously, this list requires strict inclusion criteria to ensure it only contains significant couples, not people who just had a single homosexual encounter or a very brief relationship; but I don't have a problem with the fundamental concept, and indeed as a means of demonstrating a major current and historical social issue, I'd say it's definitely worth keeping
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: I don't often use the "Wikipedia not a directory" rationale, but I am now, plus lack of sources. A list like this is impossible to maintain (it needs to be updated any time any of those listed no longer are a couple), plus it's so broad a scope that anyone who is in such a relationship could add their name, NN or not. And it's also a vandalism magnet because some idiot could decide to put Harrison Ford and Sylvester Stallone down as a couple, or something. Above all, though, I have  issues with this list, not only for the vandalism concern I just mentioned, but also because it may be necessary to cite sources that any of the people listed are, indeed, LGBT
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: First, Wikipedia is #DIR|not a directory. Second, statements that living persons are gay. bisexual or transexual requires references satisfying |Wikipedia's standards for biographies of living persons. The policy  says "Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met: The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question; The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." The same rules apply to lists. In the entire article only one claimed relationship is referenced to a source which would be judged a |reliable source. The rest are apparently from a website listing, which is not adequate to satisfy . The defense of the article on the grounds that  is a weak one and rarely succeeds. Each article must stand or fall on its own merits
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:BLP||WP:BLP||WP:RS||WP:BLP||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: The |cruft argument doesn't work: "In general, a "list of X" should only be created if X (LGBT) itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article."  And the fact the article is potentially open-ended isn't sufficient cause to delete either; hundreds, perhaps thousands of lists are open-ended
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LC)

Comment: Per ists#Organization, list articles need some sort of organizational scheme so that someone coming to the article can find what they are looking for. I don't think the current organization does (I don't know if Lily and Jane are legally married, have a formal civil union, are just "shackin' up"?  Where would I look - under 'Lily and Jane' or under 'T'?  If, heaven forbid, one of them dies tomorrow - do they get moved to 'historical couples'? are they removed entirely until the second dies and '''then''' moved to 'historical couples'?) The whole topic of the article somehow feels too 'squishy' and undefinable for an encylopedia article - subject to interpretation on the part of editors adding or deleting information and to readers looking for information. Despite all the hard work that people have put in recently rounding up sources, without a lot more work and a much stronger focus, I don't think I can support this article as 'encylopedic'. Special:Contributions/71.55.132.236|71.55.132.236
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:L)

Comment: this seems to be trivia and is probably impossible to maintain. The  violations are a very serious issue. Notable individuals' relationships belong in their biography
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: I generally dislike stand alone lists, but this now appears on its face to comply with  and  and arguably with , any noncompliance should be removed immediately at any time, but not the whole list.  I'm sure this would be useful to some.  Even if it weren't  as long as it's ok under  it shouldn't be deleted, maybe userfied or moved to project space but not delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:V||WP:N||WP:N||WP:BLP)

Comment: I was all ready to charge in and argue for deletion, thinking, "hoo boy, that's ''gotta'' have  problems", but I looked at the article and it seems reasonable and well-sourced to me, with the exception of the historical couples, many of which are unreferenced (and this should be addressed, even though BLP may not directly apply). As for notability, it seems to provide a good contemporary and historical reference for an issue of wide interest. Wikipedia is justifiably proud of its collection of LGBT articles, and this provides additional perspective
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: The last thing WP is more trouble.  Duplicates a |well-cited and |better organized article -- List of LGBT people.   —Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:LIST)

Comment: original closer's comment added by Jerry) The result was '''delete'''.  There were three reasons given for the deletion nomination - lack of sourcing, Wikipedia not being a directory of loosely-related issues and the lack of critical commentary, and precedent.  Of the three reasons, only one (the lack of sourcing) has been even half-refuted by those arguing to "keep".  In addition to this, I note there remains a huge swathe of unreferenced couples, also.  Considering there is no further explanation of these associations; for example, Laurel and Hardy are listed as a gay couple(!) - with an offline reference provided - despite there being absolutely no mention of this in either Stan Laurel, Oliver Hardy, or Laurel and Hardy,  also applies (at least to the living people mentioned). Therefore, '''delete
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: the article is consistent with  and otability (people)#Lists of people.  Sourcing and BLP issues should be addressed on the talk page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST||WP:N)