sigh. There are a number of objections to deletion, mostly stating it can be used for research purposes, but never clarifying what type of research would require this sort of category. The only one I can think of is for a One Place Study, and even then, what would it actually show in such a study? Nobody has cited any examples of what they would use it for.
Some state it isn't a ''stigma'' in our day and age. I beg to differ, else why is calling somebody a ''bastard'' still considered an insult? And one should remember that WikiTree wants to be global, so the viewpoint about our modern views on the subject should not go just by what Western cultures think. Which isn't even all the same, since I recall an objection to a notable being included in a project's list of such, because ''he fathered illegitimate children'' (this from somebody in a Western culture). As we say, what's that got to do with the price of eggs? Fathering illegitimate children does not detract from the man's accomplishments in other fields (and he hadn't fathered that many in any case, they all were recognized also).
And by this token, some say that they don't see the purpose of categories like Notables, for instance. Notables are all over the planet also. True, but there is an interest in such that is widespread, and they can be clearly identified, with specific types of notables (politics, arts...) and they very often influenced the lives of countless others. Not so for ''illegitimate children'', their status is haphazard at best, and it doesn't influence others except in a very limited way.
So this continuing debate appears to be based on a misunderstanding of what categories are for. They group people with someting in common, but that doesn't mean anything and everything people have in common should be categorized. We are about genealogy first and foremost.