Deletion of List of opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States (2nd nomination)

Comment: These are well-referenced, so there are no BLP issues here, and these lists of national level politicians by which side of this prominent issue they took have significant educational and historical value. The "unmaintainability" argument can be addressed by restricting the timeframe, turning these into historical resources on an interesting question: who in U.S. politics was for and against gay marriage around the time it was legalized? Some of the arguments above seem completely illegitimate, including (to paraphrase) "my ''sense'' is that this is OR and biased" and (not to paraphrase) "huh?". The comparison to the Iran deal list is , and the argument that the outcome of that discussion was based on - the idea that lists of prominent supporters and opposers of ''historical'' political issues are encyclopedic, but lists of supporters and opposers of ''current'' political issues are not - is just wrong and is not based in policy at all. If something will be an acceptable topic with lasting significance twenty years from now (as this obviously will be) then it is an acceptable topic today
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: If reliable sources publish similar sorts of lists -- and thus show it to be a notable list topic (beyond just the subject of opposition/support) -- then as long as there's also a clear criteria for inclusion, I don't think  would apply. The real question to me (and what Nwlaw63 might be getting at with "singling out individuals") is . If we limit it to public figures and cite sources sufficient to satisfy BLP requirements, I don't think there's a problem with "singling out individuals" who take well-documented, public positions, but we do have lots of articles about various pieces of legislation, timelines, campaigns, controversies, etc. such that it's not entirely clear to me whether there's a need for these lists (whether they're POVFORKs). However, this is not like Supporters and Opposers of Iran Nuclear Deal. That was a single event/deal, so any fork is clearly going to be a POVFORK and the coverage of supporters/opponents will be limited to a narrow span of time, with no certainty coverage will persist. Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, is a huge issue that has spanned many years. Another question worth asking is whether there are other issues for which we have such lists. Yes, yes,  (or doesn't), but it may shed some light on what consensus has been in the past. I'll note that it looks like we have list of abolitionists and list of slave owners but no list of proponents of slavery or equivalent that I can find. &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR||WP:POVFORK||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: My sense is that this type of list is a blend of original research and  include a certain amount of bias inherent in the creation (or maintenance of the list).  The article does not introduce the topic with a description that it is designed as a current, or rolling, list of opponents. As an example, in the opponents article, there is no mention of President Clinton's stance (since changed) on the topic. Because the article is an ongoing controversy, I see it similar to lists of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supporters and Opposers of Iran Nuclear Deal, where Nyttend stated "A list of people holding yes/no opinions on a specific current issue is fundamentally not encyclopedic. A detailed discussion of a past event, with a list of leading supporters of each position, is a very good idea, and it's quite reasonable to have lists of people by affiliations (e.g. lists of politicians by party affiliations, lists of people by religious affiliation), but simply a "Supporters and Opposers of CurrentPoliticalTopic", regardless of its title is not a good encyclopedia topic." and "As someone said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current top 40 albums (UK), Delete per #NEWS. An article that becomes outdated and has to be rewritten every week is essentially "List of top 40 albums (UK) for the week XX-YY Jan 2010", which would be deleted for being a current event of no lasting significance. Plus, the accuracy of articles should not depend on whether a single editor can be bothered to maintain it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per , as well as the comments of Enos733 &  Bearcat.--Special:Contributions/98.173.176.125|98.173.176.125
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR)