Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay anthem (2nd nomination)

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. Tawker (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gay anthem

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

My first thoughts when I saw this article were "gawd, what a tip". This article is almost entirely original research and every reference refers to examples of gay anthems, which surely violate WP:CRUFT. I take the view that this article would be best blown up and restarted. Laun chba ller 22:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Will Survive The nomination contradicts itself by claiming that the article is original research but then, in the same breath, observing that "every reference refers to examples of gay anthem". WP:CRUFT and WP:TNT are not policies, being just variations on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Andrew (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The examples are unencyclopedic, so should be removed. That leaves original research. I'll admit that was unclear.--Laun chba ller 09:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major newspapers cover this topic such as The Guardian [1] and The New York Times[2]. Plenty of references in the article, I easily recognizing those as reliable sources and looking at the articles. Dream Focus 09:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Books cover the topic: [3], [4], [5]. I remind the nominator what while WP:TNT is a random essay, WP:ATD is policy, and it asks us to fix articles if they have issues, not to delete them. --cyclopia ^speak! 14:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closets are for clothes - yes, it needs better sourcing and fixing up, but no more than the normative stub. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs some work, but that's not a reason for delete. The topic at hand is a notable one. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable. That the article is a mess is besides the point. It can be nuked. → Call me Hahc21 19:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant amount of discussion among multiple secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete every reference to a particular song. I'm tempted to say that where any particular song is mentioned, that field should be ploughed with salt, too. I'm happy to Keep an article on the general concept of a "gay anthem", but exactly which songs actually are gay anthems is a matter of personal opinion. There are sure to be plenty of references claiming that this or that song is a gay anthem, but each of those references is just one newspaper columnist's or blogger's or publicist's opinion. For example, when I look at the list in the article I see many songs that don't strike me as gay anthems, while I notice that many of what I would call the "obvious" gay anthems are missing. But that's just my opinion, and every other source that says that some song is a "gay anthem" is also simply expressing an opinion. As an encyclopedia we need to deal in facts, not opinions - even if they are expressed in the music blogs of the Guardian or the fashion pages of the NYT. The correct fix for this article is to remove the parts that are simply opinion. RomanSpa (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clicking on the links to these songs, I see notice they mention things about them being gay anthems though. Beautiful (Christina Aguilera song) has an entire paragraph in the lede about that. It mentions that it won a GLAAD Media Award, that the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. Did all of the songs listed win that award? We need to have a proper inclusion criteria on what gets listed of course. Dream Focus 00:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That seems sensible to me. Rather than listing songs here, we could have links to different relevant awards (GLAAD Media Award, etc.), and mention the songs in the appropriate article. This would have the big advantage of replacing matters of opinion with matters of fact.

I've also taken another look at the first part of the article ("Themes"), and it does look very much like someone's just cut-and-pasted from someone else's potboiler. The weakness is that it's just a list of disparate descriptions, rather than a thought-out analysis of what actually makes an anthem (as opposed to a song that someone likes). The article also needs to distinguish between what we might call "gay piano-bar anthems" and "gay dance-floor anthems", and address the additional complication that many anthemic dance-floor tracks played in gay clubs are simply "dance-floor anthems" with no particular additional significance for the LGBTQ community. In some cases it's easy to make the distinction - "Sisters Are Doin' It For Themselves" rarely does much when played in a straight club, and does little these days when played in a non-twink gay club, but still fills the floor and changes the atmosphere in a lesbian club - but in other cases what is described as a "gay anthem" is really just a "dance-floor anthem" (e.g. "When Love Takes Over", "Firework", and even "Dancing Queen"). What we really need is a satisfactory definition of "gay anthem", and that's hard to find, because it's so much a matter of individual people's opinion. I can certainly see Laun chba ller's point when he nominated this article for deletion - it is a real mess. RomanSpa (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am tempted to boldly remove the two offending sections now.--Laun chba ller 21:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have performed the removal.--Laun chba ller 12:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I disagree that the topic is notable. WP:CRUFT applies. Northern Antarctica (₵) 21:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, "this is cruft" is not a valid argument. --cyclopia ^speak! 11:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The journalistic reporting on this subject coupled with the sources present show that this does exist as a concept, and that it is a notable one. The sources are fine and besides WP:CRUFT, which isn't policy, there's no claim that shows why the page ought to be delete. No policy violations means that this ought to be kept. Ducknish (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the journalistic reporting and other sources support the view that "gay anthem" is a real thing, and that it is notable. Can you provide a way of identifying which songs are actually gay anthems, though? The problem with an article that simply says "Journalist X says that Y is a gay anthem" is that such a reference invariably refers not to a piece of journalistic reporting, but to an opinion or comment column, which simply expresses that particular journalist's opinion. This seems to be a problem, if we are trying to provide our readers with facts rather than opinions. RomanSpa (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2014 (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.