Deletion of List of bisexual people

Comment: There's no question that these lists need work.  The list of bisexual people has been very bad for a long time, and even the much-improved List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E still cites self-published websites.  However, to those arguing that this is trivial:  if universities start offering degrees in the study of people who like turnips, then yes, we certainly ''should'' have a list of turnip|brassicarapaphiles.  Personal lack of interest in the subject is no more relevant than any other |IDONTLIKEIT argument
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Unmaintainable and is pushing . Has no real point from a research perspective
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:LIVING)

Comment: This list needs a lot of work, but given how it should look when it's cleaned up, I think it's necssary and encyclopedic. Dev920 has been working like a dog, with myself and a few others chipping in, and the state of the list is gradually improving. Openly LGBT people are a minority, and bisexual people a minority within a minority. To suggest that non-heterosexual orientation is of no consequence amounts to ignoring the contents of every article in :Category:LGBT, first and foremost the concept of coming out. This needs to be a list more than a category because sourcing is ''such'' an important aspect of this (per ) and because elaboration is needed. While there have been arguments about who should be included in the list (see talk page) I still think this list can and should be on par with Wikipedia's list standards. Don't give up on it yet
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:LIVING)

Comment: Despite difficulties in maintaining such a list, I believe it is a valuable addition. A brief scan shows me almost everyone on the current list is notable enough to have their own article. My reservations are erify and |reliable sources. I would prefer at least two reliable sources for each listing because, despite what people may say, there is still a widespread stigma attached to these labels. The list provides proof against LGB invisibility and massive evidence of their various contributions
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: If there are poorly sourced entries for living people (and there most likely are), these can be immediately purged under , but I see nothing wrong with the basic concept of these lists. This is a legitimate academic and cultural topic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: The lists are works in progress but please check out List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A-E to see what these lists should look like once reasonably complete and properly sourced and formatted. There have been recent attempts to force compliance with  and most of the entries are sourced. I have removed unsourced entries for some time and was about to turn to removing NNDB sourced entries along with others backed by sources that fail |RS. Gay, lesbian and bisexual people who are notable in various fields are important in terms of social studies. These lists also allow brief information about their nationality and occupation that :Category:LGBT people cannot provide. The list is maintained and the inclusion category is clearly expressed as: "This is a partial list of confirmed famous people who were or are gay, lesbian or bisexual. Famous people who are simply rumored to be gay, lesbian or bisexual, are not listed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:RS)

Comment: People want to know about homo/bisexual famous people, and they aren't necessarily gay either. That's why http://www.glbtq.com/ the GLBTQ encyclopedia exists. Per Koweja, this meets every requirement on , is not frivolous, and as mentioned previously, minority groups have lists, that's why there are lists of people by religion, occupation, and yes, sexuality, people are interested in reading these and it is our duty as an encyclopedia to produce this information that they seek. OK, so the bisexual list contains unsourced entries - is it our fault that {{user|NerriTunn}} wants everyone in the world to be bisexual? We keep removing them, she keeps putting them back.  has been working on making these lists fully comprehensive and sourced - delete these articles and you delete weeks (cumulatively) of our work to make these lists presentable. They are certainly not indiscriminate, we have developed guidelines within the project to define the criteria by which a person may be placed on the list.  I have been tardy on the conversion to tables - if these lists are kept, I will ensure they all reach the same standard as A-E within this month
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST||WP:LGBT)

Comment: Large ≠ indiscriminate. You might want to take a closer look at #INDISCRIMINATE
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Article subject is by nature far too indiscriminate.  List of straight people is not specific/notable enough for an article; I don't see why this case is different.  Wikipedia is |not an indiscriminate collection of information. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)