The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - A fairly obvious consensus to keep for all three articles. (non admin close) — Becksguy (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior[edit]

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

If anything, we should have a list of animals that never display homosexual behavior. That list would probably be much smaller than this one. Voortle (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Becksguy (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going to be bold and add two more articles to this AfD, as all three articles should either be kept or deleted based on the consensus here: Redfarmer (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of birds displaying homosexual behavior
  • List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior

• Comment. These are all part of the same list. Benjiboi 17:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• But they're three separate articles so they should be kept or deleted together. Redfarmer (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is definitely overkill. We already have a Homosexuality in animals article. Fails WP:NOT#DIR. Redfarmer (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• God, simply SPEEDY DELETE IT!!! This is not encyclopedic.--IslaamMaged126 (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this would fall under any of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. Redfarmer (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a very well referenced and encyclopedic list that is supporting branch of Homosexuality in animals. It has notable information that would overwhelm the main article and therefore is best presented as a supporting list. It most certainly passes WP:LIST which distinguishes it from the odd suggestion that this is a directory. I would also say the nominator's suggestion to create an article on list of animals that never display homosexual behavior sounds very WP:POINTy. There is a reason why biologists study the occurrence of homosexual behaviors in animals. It is a unique behavior that extends beyond the scope of the norm. The potential physiological or evolutionary reasons behind it can broaden our understanding of the world around us. This list is very pertinent to Wikipedia's Science related coverage and to argue for its deletion based on "pointy" reasons is very POV oriented and not a valid cause for deletion. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 13:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should clarify. My suggestion this falls under WP:NOT#DIR is per criteria four of said policy:

    Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization for this issue in categories.

  • I would argue with you that my vote to delete is POV oriented, though. Just saying, don't judge until you know the person's story. ;) I simply feel the articles are unencyclopedic. Redfarmer (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should clarify, while I disagree with you on policy interpretation between the encyclopedic purpose of a list per WP:LIST and the appearance of a directory list per WP:NOT#DIR, I don't consider your personal delete vote POV oriented. It just a disagreement on views of different guidelines. The nominator's suggestion and the speedy delete comments do appear to be more POV then policy based. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 14:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would also say the nominator's suggestion to create an article on list of animals that never display homosexual behavior sounds very WP:POINTy. Well I'm curious to know as to what animals there are that reproduce sexually (as opposed to asexual reproducing animals) where homosexual behavior never occurs if indeed there are any. This present article seems to suggest that there's not any, or there are very few of them. Voortle (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a straight editorial matter if some wording in the article isn't clear. We will never delete articles for things like that. If that's all this is, please withdraw the nomination. Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 17:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep: Why is this even listed here? The nominator simply says "we should have a different list instead - it would be shorter" - that's not a reason to delete. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator's contention is that the list is too broad in scope, because it is a set complement (c.f. List of virgins (AfD discussion)) and unsuitable for an article as per Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone_lists)#Appropriate topics for lists. Xe is contending that the complementary set is the one to have the list article for. Of course, whether one agrees with that contention depends from whether one agrees with the first sentence of our homosexuality in animals article. Uncle G (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Really, Uncle G? You read all that from the nominator? Because all I see is:

If anything, we should have a list of animals that never display homosexual behavior. That list would probably be much smaller than this one. '

• • • That doesn't say anything at all that is a criterion for deletion. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• (ec) Keep (all) - this is a very well referenced list (in three parts). The information is encyclopedic. It supports the text that can be found in Homosexuality in animals, but is too extensive to be merged there. Aleta (Sing) 15:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Aleta (Sing) 16:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Why are we deleting a heavily sourced, ludicrously straight-forward subject topic in the sciences? Lawrence Cohen 16:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per WP:SNOWBALL. If nom feels a list of animals that never display homosexual behavior should exist they are welcome to start it although, as suggested above, it would seem quite WP:POINTy and likely be no more illuminating than this list. Benjiboi 17:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOWBALL does not apply if the vote is not unanimous. Redfarmer (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment. AfD notice posted to remaining wikipedia projects. Benjiboi 17:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. Clearly encyclopedic and notable subject of science, well documented. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per WP:SNOWBALL and to add further, this list has Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales' own stamp of approval since he questioned the list's value, threatening to wipe it out himself, before but since it was greatly sourced, changed his mind stating Absolutely excellent work. This has now gone from an article that the reader would find highly dubious to something well-referenced. I love it. ALLSTARecho 18:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As far as the 'never'-list goes: that is impossible to prove. Jcwf (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. I've been thinking about this one a lot today, especially after Agne27 pointed out this is an appendix of sorts to Homosexuality in animals. I still don't feel completely comfortable with this one but feel I may have been too hasty in voting to delete, which may be a fault of my own bias towards lists since I've tried to avoid them since I got trapped in the middle of an AfD over one I helped create. I do feel the subject is notable but it's still unclear to me whether the list actually serves to increase knowledge or whether the information could be dispersed over the various species' articles and whether brief examples on Homosexuality in animals would suffice. As such, I'm changing my vote to weak keep for now. I would remind some of the voters above, however, to assume good faith in the nominator, who was probably trying to be sarcastic in his suggestion of an alternate list and defend the list on its own merits lest someone else who feels it hasn't been properly defended nominate it again. A founder approving of the article or the article being properly sourced would not save it if it was to fail other criteria. Redfarmer (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I think you're answering your own questions. We have hundreds of bios of LGBT people yet a more complete list of those people is seen as quite helpful and something that wikipedia excels at. We could try to add that such and such fish, for instance, displays homosexual behavior but I'd be willing to bet that that same information would be removed in most cases, rightfully or not, thus rendering one list as quite useful to collect and present that information. Benjiboi 19:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The two are not necessarily parallel, though. In the LGBT case, the people who are LGBT are the exceptions, not the norm. However, in the case of species, the first sentence of homosexuality in animals implies that species where homosexuality has been observed are the norm and not the exceptions. It states that it is "widespread".

      I note that the source whose citation is currently linked to that sentence makes no mention at all of homosexuality, and does not appear to support the article content. So one question to answer is whether that sentence is actually correct. If the argument here is that homosexuality has only been observed in the few species on this list, out of the million species catalogued by Dr Gordon et al., then indeed it is the exception and not the norm, and this is a list with a reasonable scope. In that case, however, homosexuality in animals needs attention, because "documented in fewer than 0.1% of all species" is not what most readers will infer from "widespread". Uncle G (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • That ref was asserting something else and had been moved in edit warring. Thank you for pointing it out, it's been corrected. Homosexuality is indeed widespread but studying and documenting that is very recent. In addition our studies of all species and their implications is, at best, an emerging field. Although there is a long history of exploration the technology to more fully understand as well as the financing to support ongoing research is woefully running behind the interest to do so. Benjiboi 20:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete since it claims that nearly all animals except asexual and hermaphroditic reproducers can display homosexual behaviour, it's difficult to see the point of a list that will presumably end up with thousands of species. Isn't this list also making a WP:POINT Jimfbleak (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What POINT is that? Lawrence Cohen 21:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. If there are content disputes, deletion is not the answer. The fact that an animal can display homosexual behavior doesn't mean it does. The article clearly asserts that 1500 species have shown homosexual behavior, 500 of which have been studied thoroughly. Justin ^chat 20:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in that there are sources for the statements made. If it's any comfort to homophobes, these same species also display heterosexual behavior, which has prevented their extinction. Mandsford (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please assume good faith and watch attacks. Though it may not have been your intention, this could be interpreted as saying that anyone who believes this article should be deleted is a homophobe. I can't speak for anyone else but I don't consider myself particularly homophobic, and I don't think my last boyfriend did either (I'm a male). Redfarmer (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't worry... I think the article should be kept, and I'm not gay. I don't think anyone's making their opinions based on their personal preferences about lifestyles. I'm glad you closed with a joke, because a lot of Wikipedians are humorphobes. Mandsford (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per above, and Allstar especially. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 21:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep an appropriate list, limited to what is known. DGG (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep scientific/sourced etc. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Not only is it completely referenced and comprehensive, Jimbo himself gave the article a thumbs up and said it showed wiki editing at its best after Benjiboi and a colleague finished sourcing all the material. His exact words were "I love it". To nominate it for deletion shows a lack of due diligence. Jeffpw (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appears to cite a dozen different references and many additiona external sites. Encyclopedic and notable. Edison (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well sourced and notable. No reason to be up for deletion. --Moni3 (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The information is relevant and encyclopedic, and it would be difficult to provide the same information in any other format. Queerudite (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well researched and sourced. - MPF (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep although we are heading towards a nightmare CfD for all the "LBGT" categories, as it is unacceptable to have everything related to these subjects lumped together in such a controversial fashion. Many if not most homosexuals and bisexuals object to the conflation and it a massive POV and BLP problem to institutionalize this disputed terminology in the wikipedia mainspace. Indeed, the LBGT wikiproject should probably be broken up/renamed too, this terminology may be to disputed to even be outside the mainspace. Lobojo (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Keep, Keep: lists by definition are generally unencyclopadic as earlier charged. this list, however, is one of the 'most' encylopaedic around. --emerson7 04:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like a case for a Speedy keep under WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. There is room for discussing whether having three articles is appropriate, but that should be first addressed on the articles' talk pages, not at AfD. Fireplace (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply. It was addressed on the talk page and was agreed that article was huge and should be split with the first two largest sections, mammals and birds, having their own articles. We can merge them together again, if forced to do so, but I think we would quickly decide, again, tat the article was again too huge and should be split. Benjiboi 22:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Lists are an important part of Wikipedia, this is a well written and well sourced list, keep per WP:SAL and WP:LIST.Earthdirt (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.