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 delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States[edit]

List of opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also bundling in this article:

List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Similar to this AFD, these articles do not seem encyclopedic. They are well sourced, but Wikipedia is not a directory (WP:NOTDIR). Natg 19 (talk) 06:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 06:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Shouldn't we have a link right here to the last deletion discussion and the reasons given for what ended up having happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoffeeWithMarkets (talk • contribs) 08:50, 22 August 2015‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - huh? —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is exactly what we shouldn't be doing with lists on Wikipedia - using it to single out individuals for their positions on current controversial issues. Non-encyclopedic in the extreme, like the Iran deal list. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 WP:NOTDIR would apply. The real question to me (and what Nwlaw63 might be getting at with "singl[ing] out individuals") is WP:POVFORK. 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, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (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. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - 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 WP:NOT#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." Enos733 (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Using lists to track supporters or opponents of a current political issue is not what Wikipedia is for. These rapidly approach unmaintainability, given that (a) people can and do switch sides, and (b) new people become prominent all the time, and/or express opinions on political issues that they haven't previously publicized — so these lists would just keep growing and growing and growing, if anybody could be bothered to maintain them at all (an effort which is likely to entirely peter out, now that it's a settled issue and a moot point.) Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per WP:NOTDIR, as well as the comments of Enos733 & Bearcat.--98.173.176.125 (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both. 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 WP:OTHERSTUFF, 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. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:29, 27 August 2015 (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.