Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaylors

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. ✗plicit 14:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaylors

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Simply is not notable enough for its own mainspace article. There isn't even a Swifties article, so this is incredibly unneccessary. The whole article can be summarised in one or two sentences within Taylor Swift, if it needs to be. — Peterpie123rww (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. Peterpie123rww (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only good sources per the bot are Buzzfeed and People mag. Rest are iffy or not useable. I can't find mentions of this topic in RS. I'd be ok with a selective merge if needed. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What about Jezebel, Cosmopolitan, Them, and Rolling Stone? Elttaruuu (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Elttaruuu is a sockmaster who used the account BARSHweedle to stack votes at this AfD: Special:diff/1161290779 Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They mention the term but don't talk about it. We aren't a dictionary; we know the word exists but need articles talking about it or the phenomenon it represents, which I don't find. Nice socks btw. Oaktree b (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some lesser sources need to be removed, but has notable coverage and passed WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justwatchmee (talk • contribs) 16:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though certain reliable sources cover this topic, this article easily falls under WP:FANCRUFT or WP:RUMOUR, which Wikipedia is not. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is supposed to cover universal topics and not stuff that only a specific audience is interested in. This topic should be restricted to fandom-specific websites. Ippantekina (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even think it merits a sentence on Taylor's page. These 'theories' are mostly gossip and there is no tangible proof. There have been multiple videos of the alleged kissgate incident. One in particular does not show a kiss, but could show Karlie Kloss kissing Josh Kushner just before he was believed to have left the concert. Unless the full story is going to be told, I believe that Wikipedia should refrain from gossip. Any media outlet who printed these stories are doing so for clicks and are well-known for spread gossip, both real and fake from 'sources' often straight from the celebrity's own PR team for PR purposes. Attach Taylor Swift's name to it and it's instant attention and clicks. Jacklynpaper (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Gaylor theory does not warrant an article on its own at all let alone a section of an article. It is not covered in Taylor Swift (as it should not be! biography articles should not tolerate speculation), but it's mentioned in Cultural impact of Taylor Swift in a tiny paragraph (sub-section: Mythology and subculture) about the parasocial behavior of fans as per reports by academics and coverage by few reliable publications like Rolling Stone, which is the only reason it's even mentioned there. ℛonherry☘ 18:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, a paragraph mentioning Swift's impact on the LGBT community and maybe "Gaylors" might deserve a mention in the Cultural impact article, not a standalone article. Ippantekina (talk) 04:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Conspiracy theories, and Sexuality and gender. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article content sourced from multiple published newspapers, so why delete? HarukaAmaranth (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being cited, but without proof from the artist's PR or management or from the artist herself. The same people who never pen their name to conspiracy articles, dating/drama articles, or attention seeking articles. Speculation doesn't hold up in court. Albeit Wikipedia is not court, but it does have higher standards and is more reliable than many published 'newspapers' who often times only cite 'sources' or a friend said, or in this case, fan speculation/gossip/rumor. Wikipedia runs the risk of being like Reddit, Tumblr, Twitter, Fake information sites or blogs, etc. So that I'm clear, my understanding of Wikipedia is to be a factual informational tool vs the a freedom of speech social media platform. I call for deletion. Jacklynpaper (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are lots of reasons why I believe this article should be deleted, including the fact that the creator and author of almost 98% of the page (Elttaruuu) is a sock, and just got blocked for a week for vote-stacking. Looking past the editor, the article itself is in direct violation of multiple official Wikipedia policies all detailed at WP:NOT (namely WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:NOTGOSSIP, and especially WP:RUMOUR, since none of the parties involved have confirmed anything). As well, WP:CRUFT—while not technically an official policy—holds power here as it directly explains why we shouldn't cater to matters that exist exclusively inside a fandom. From a notability perspective, I'm not so sure this meets WP:GNG criteria, as 'significant coverage' seems to be lacking in the article: most of the sources are just stating "Swift fans believe...", which does not seem all that different than citing the Swift fans themselves, which would not be notable. Overall, I believe that this would be a great article to develop on the 'Swiftipedia' fandom page or something less serious and more fandom-related; however, I'm confident in saying that this does not belong in an encyclopedia where facts and statements (not opinions and speculations) are of the utmost value. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Doggy54321. Obvious case of WP:FANCRUFT. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Beyond the fancruft issues, this article is not about the subject it claims to be about. A neutral article on "Gaylors," if one were merited, would be about the fan group itself. This article is almost entirely about that group's theories on Taylor Swift. It is a non-neutral and undue collection of "evidence" that someone's sexuality is different from what they have declared, which disturbs me on a personal level (even if the "intent" by this group is positive). Even if the "events" are cited it should be clear this is original research and is definitely well outside BLP standards. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 04:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's questionable whether Gaylors have been defined as a coherent group of people by reliable media, and coverage is still so skimpy that they only deserve to be mentioned briefly (and already are) at Cultural impact of Taylor Swift. This particular article is a disaster for Wikipedia, as it doesn't even describe the group itself but only unloads their unhinged theories about Taylor's personal life. It's nearly an endorsement of pathological obsession, or as one source put it, pareidolia. The article's content violates WP:FANCRUFT and WP:NOTGOSSIP, and this group of fans are not notable in their own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This topic – perhaps the article should be renamed Gaylor (fan theory) – is notable, widely reported on in reliable sources: i-D (2019), Gawker 1 2 (it was reliable 2021–23), Rolling Stone, Sydney Morning Herald, Salon, etc. Arguments that a fan theory is speculative/gossipy are separate from whether it has been covered in reliable sources. Addressing some comments here, WP:RUMOR (AKA WP:CRYSTAL) is about unverifiable predictions and original research, not notable rumors; WP:NOTGOSSIP is about gossip magazine–style minutiae, not the notability of a gossipy, fan fiction–adjacent (1 2) theory; and WP:FANCRUFT is not the kind of essay that can be namechecked without explaining how a relevant guideline supports that label. Keep is my first choice, but if there's no consensus for that, redirect to Cultural impact of Taylor Swift#Fandom dynamics. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – During an interview for Vogue in 2019, Taylor talked about her support for the LGBT community saying: "I didn't realise until recently that I could advocate for a community that I'm not a part of". These theories are nothing but weird conspiracy, Wikipedia shouldn't be a space for that. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 05:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the full publication, by the way: https://www.vogue.com/article/taylor-swift-cover-september-2019. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 05:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article should be removed per WP:RUMOR. Pumpkinspyce (talk • contribs) 07:48, 27 June 2023 (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.