Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Gay icons (2004)
Note: This category was first listed on August 12, 2004, and was subsequently listed as unresolved. It was relisted on October 17, 2004, and under new policies at Wikipedia:Categorization of people, there was a consensus to keep, with four votes to keep and one neutral. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:09, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
August 12, 2004 discussion
[edit]Stereotyping is not encyclopedic. - UtherSRG 21:30, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a good illustration of why categories need to be managed according to strict criteria. First, the name is confusing, because while the content is supposed cultural icons of gay people, it could easily be read instead as "icons that are gay." Second, the status of being a gay icon is not something that can really be verified (however little argument the inclusion of Judy Garland and Madonna would get). Third, being a gay icon is not necessarily anything inherent about the subjects of these articles—it is about how others have possibly perceived them rather than something integral to the subjects themselves. There is valid information on this subject, but it should be included in an article's text as "Some consider _____ a "gay icon", because..." This is an inappropriate use of the unannotated classifications that are categories. Postdlf 21:43, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, for all of Postdlf's reasons. --Gary D 22:03, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Ditto. - UtherSRG 22:30, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I was going to oppose, as I think it's quite an important aspect of "gay culture" who we idolise and who we don't, but the arguments above are relatively persuasive, so I can be convinced… — OwenBlacker 11:30, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Ok. Here's more. *grins* Not all gay people idolize "gay icons". Not all gay people are in "gay culture". Not all people in the gay community (where gay culture is more relevant vice outside of the community) subscribe to all aspects of gay culture, including idolizing "gay icons". The category is inherently POV - it doesn't give recognition to these facts, which aids in stereotyping all gay people as idolizing these people. It would be more apprpriate to make note of each person's impact on gay culture in the individual articles. Some are seen more as icons for their political work, some for being associated with Judy Garland, etc. - UtherSRG 11:45, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I can see your point completely (pticly as a non-scene, alternative culture kinda guy), but just because I myself don't idolise Judy Garland doesn't mean she's not a gay idol. There's shitloads of gay culture to which I don't subscribe (the hellhole that is G-A-Y being but one part of it), but that doesn't mean that that culture doesn't not exist. Just because some readers don't understand the nature of subcultures and stereotypes doesn't mean articles and categories can't be accurate and NPOV. I'm still minded to vote keep, I think. — OwenBlacker 23:52, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Ok. Here's more. *grins* Not all gay people idolize "gay icons". Not all gay people are in "gay culture". Not all people in the gay community (where gay culture is more relevant vice outside of the community) subscribe to all aspects of gay culture, including idolizing "gay icons". The category is inherently POV - it doesn't give recognition to these facts, which aids in stereotyping all gay people as idolizing these people. It would be more apprpriate to make note of each person's impact on gay culture in the individual articles. Some are seen more as icons for their political work, some for being associated with Judy Garland, etc. - UtherSRG 11:45, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Convert. It's useful to have in one place a list of all things which some people consider to be gay icons. But given the controversial nature of the issue, perhaps a unifying article would be better than a category structure. -- Beland 02:53, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Convert/merge into a list and delete. -Sean Curtin 06:56, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Gay icon article accomplishes what this Cat wants to do. Davodd 21:05, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
October 17, 2004 discussion
[edit]This is a re-post of an unresolved category deletion question. As per our new policy, controversial questions that cannot be resolved on CFD get cross-posted to VFD in order to get wider attention.
Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people was finalized after the initial vote, so I'm starting the poll anew.
After noting Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people; the existence of the article Gay icon, which includes an annotated list of "gay icons"; and the inclusion policy at the top of Category:Gay icons, do you vote to delete and merge into the list, or keep the category? Would the inclusion policy need to be improved to satisfy you, is there a different categorization scheme you think is more appropriate, etc.?
"Keep" will be declared in 7 days unless there is a consensus to delete. --Beland 04:17, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete and merge; the article provides the opportunity for annotation, which the category does not. Any articles about gay icons should link to the gay icon article from the text anyway; otherwise, they shouldn't be included. -- Beland 04:17, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Changing to Neutral; after some thought, I would actually be OK with keeping this if the inclusion criteria was that each article have a paragraph or at least a sentence explaining why, to what extent, and by whom the person was considered a gay icon. I think that satisfactorily addresses the issue of arguing over whether or not inclusion would be inaccurate, offensive, etc. It's merely a matter of whether the annotations are in one place or many different but quickly accessible places. -- Beland 06:00, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Note that current "categorisation of people" guideline does implore people to check whether a categorisation is consistent with the article (content), while otherwise it is only normal that the categorisation is removed. I don't think "gay icons" need to deviate from that, neither in abandoning this particular recommendation, neither in adding another similar one. --Francis Schonken 21:43, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep --- Not sure I grasp why this is proposed for deletion from the prior discussion. I suspect it's a documentable fact that certain celebrities have a gay fanbase to a noticeable extent. If drawing this audience is a complicated, chance-ridden, contingent, and historically complex process, this fact underlines the need for a Baedeker. I might propose moving it to something like Category:Camp icons if the word "gay" is a stumbling block, but that strikes me as less accurate or not necessarily co-extensive. Smerdis of Tlön 05:23, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I had to look this up: Baedeker is a travel guide. -- Beland 06:02, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep The Gay icon article probably needs to be expanded a bit, both the explantory text and the list of gay icons, and the Category:Gay icons probably needs to be populated a bit more, but both are useful and informative. gK 20:59, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - Seems pretty OK to me. Wouldn't make it too large, while then a lot of second order problems would maybe start emerging (e.g. people starting to ask to "split" it; or someone reposting on CfD while in a 100 names one is doubtful - which has happened before, remember...) I'm still not sure whether the category definition should make it impossible to include icons that are not people, e.g. the rainbow flag is a more or less internationally recognised gay icon. But that's not for this CfD discussion. --Francis Schonken 21:43, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - the explanation on the category page could be a bit stronger, but definitely a keeper. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:13, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- DELETE
I just noticed this stupid category.
Quote: certain celebrities have a gay fanbase /// (additon) Actually gay people are fans of icons which campaign for it , no reason why do have this category. Absolutley unnecessary, so I'm for delete!--ThomasK 19:23, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
April 29, 2005 discussion
[edit]- DELETE - as gay man and long-time gay rights activist (just to make that clear), I really object to this stupid, frivolous category, which serves only to trivialise and demean gay people. There are no objective criteria for who or what a "gay icon" is, and it is really just a list of current pop stars and actors, plus a few old Hollywood and Broadway relics who nobody actually remembers but who always get listed because it is traditional to do so (eg Joan Crawford). Many gay people do not idolize pop singers and soap stars, and even those that do are only doing do as part of the wider pop-trash culture. Why don't we have Housewife icons or Teenage girl icons or Retirement home icons? This whole category is offensive garbage and should be deleted. Adam 08:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- FUN * I think taking life not-so-seriously is more fun and think the horse's behind who wrote the above should be politely smacked.