Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Gaga as gay icon


 * 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   redirect to Lady Gaga. Merging is the best option here. I'll leave a redirect so that the history is available. Tone 15:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Lady Gaga as gay icon

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Ok, well, here's the deal; while the sources do give a good idea of how close Gaga is to the gay community (indeed, she openly admits to loving her gay fans), this doesn't mean she's a gay icon. Google searches for the term bring up nothing but blog posts and forum conversations. Point is, not many reliable sources refer to her as such (and, in today's world, the term isn't lightly thrown around), and most of the information is about her own sexuality, anecdotes about how she likes the gay community, and things unrelated to the article's subject. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D  23:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge, if appropriate. I see no reliable sources that actually prove the notability of the article subject.  Chzz  ►  23:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Redirect - see below. You say that Gaga is not a gay icon, but she has been listed as one with a source at the Gay icon article for quite awhile now. Her closeness to the gay community and her sexuality are quite indeed factors that make her a gay icon, to say that they don't is absolutely ridiculous; the former is what has made Madonna and Janet Jackson gay icons. Nothing in this article is irrelevant to Gaga's prominence in the gay community. Furthermore, this article contains numerous references that indicate her importance in LGBT culture, and this article could quite possibly be expanded with more. POKERdance talk/ contribs 00:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In saying 'her closeness', I mean her personal closeness, or how she feels about the subject. That alone takes up about half of the article. As for her being in the gay icon article, Wikipedia is not a source for itself. The source in that article also doesn't lead to a working website. Besides, we'd need a few sources to establish that she's a gay icon; the opinions of one small website and a few blogs/forums doesn't really suffice (in my view). Master of Puppets  - Call me MoP! :D  00:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've added more sourced content that shows how people view Gaga as a gay icon. This article is not bad and certainly does not need to be merged or redirected and certainly not deleted. It just needs some expansion and more references. POKERdance talk/ contribs 01:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge with Lady Gaga. The article doesn't ever really speak specifically about her being a gay icon, just that the gay community have helped her with her career. Possibly a small section on it in "Personal life" in her own article. --SteelersFanUK06  ReplyOnMine!   00:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per SteelersFan_UK06; hardly justifies its own article, even if sources were found. Owen&times; &#9742;  01:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Madonna has an article about her status as a gay icon. Janet Jackson has one as well. This article contains a large amount of information on Gaga's status as a prominent figure in the gay community. Since the article's nomination, I have added more information about her actual status in addition to her support. POKERdance talk/ contribs 01:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:WAX. Thanks for improving the article, though! Master of Puppets  - Call me MoP! :D  02:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge: They don't get much more obvious than this one. Toddst1 (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge (edit conflict) This may well become an encyclopedic subject in a decade or two, but really it's premature. The fact that we have other articles about gay icons is indicative of how those performers have cemented their status in gay culture over a lifetime. Lady Gaga hasn't made that much of an impact yet and the quality of sources show that. Compare those here to those in Judy Garland as gay icon. Another concern is WP:OR. If sources haven't made these connections between, say, Gaga's mother liking fashion and her being a gay icon, does this count as sythesis? The article is relatively well-written and interesting, but I don't think it has a place here. --Gimme danger (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as irrelevant and unencyclop&aelig;dic fork. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge Feel this is too WP:RECENTISM. The woman hasn't even had her career expand for a year and hence any legacy as a gay icon always comes of as too much of fancrufty and recentism. Madonna and Janet's career and their legacy and work in the LGBT areas are set in stone. Hence their articles appear as solid exapmples of how they have influenced the community. In this case, comes off as vapid. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge Let us revisit this issue in twenty years. This artist has not been around nearly long enough to become an icon in the gay or any other community. Wperdue (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The news media calls her that already. I googled for "Lady Gaga" and "gay icon" and already found plenty of notable references.  I'll be adding some now.   D r e a m Focus  10:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that Googling it and pasting in results you got won't work. These two sources have nothing to do with Gaga except in that she is mentioned (and very briefly so):
 * The first one is about Britney Spears. Gaga's barely mentioned.
 * The second one (the Philly Enquirer) doesn't even refer to her as a gay icon; a local film publisher does. This person is, unfortunately, not an expert on the gay community nor anyone notable.
 * What news media, if I may ask? Have you found any references that directly admit to her being a gay icon and are notable/reliable? Master of Puppets  - Call me MoP! :D  12:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is really a slam dunk, a quick look at LGBT publications alone will give you all you need. She easily is on par with Janet Jackson in this field. And she has bisexual street cred and hot blog rumors about her being trans are hilarious. Really this could be quite an article. Here's some sourcing that may help:
 * The Lady Gaga Talks ‘The Fame’ 2008 GayWired.com
 * Going Gaga: Matt Thomas talks to this year’s best-selling Grammy-nominated queer dance diva from another dimension. Fab Magazine issue 362.
 * Lady Gaga On Success: 'The Turning Point For Me Was The Gay Community', 'They'll always stand by me and I'll always stand by them,' Gaga says of her gay fans. Jocelyn Vena, reporting by Tim Kash, May 7 2009 6:51 AM EDT, MTV.
 * Lady loves her GaGa costumes Nadia Mendoza, The Sun, 25 March 2009.
 * Lady GaGa's Bi-coastal/Gay Hot Spots PlanetOut, July 19, 2009.
 * Going GaGa Rachel Lastra, Curve Magazine January 23, 2009]
 * Lady GaGa's Gay Guide to NYC: The pop sensation chats about a few of her favorite places, events and things in the Big Apple. Out Traveler, August 07, 2009.
 * A Fashion-forward Diva is Driving Her Fans Gaga A.D. Amorosi, Philadelphia Inquirer, March 25, 2009.
 * Hope these help. -- Banj e  b oi   11:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll break these down step-by-step:
 * GayWired: Your fans think you're on your way to becoming a gay icon, says the interviewer. Gaga agrees. Neither the fans nor Gaga are an authoritative source on the matter.
 * Fabmag: article states "destined to be gay icon". I could be destined to be a coffee icon if I bought three million pots and started brewing coffee, but I'm not :P
 * MTV: There's nothing there to indicate her supposed status. Sure, she loves her gay fans, but that's not relevant to her being a gay icon.
 * The Sun: Again, nothing. Kylie Minogue is mentioned as the icon, not Gaga.
 * PlanetOut: Again, nothing except her love for gay fans. No icon reference.
 * Curve: Nothing. She even acknowledges that she's trying to become an icon. Unless she can be one and try to be one at the same time, no reference here.
 * OutTraveler: Nothing.
 * The only person who thinks she's an icon is a local film publisher.
 * Seeing no actual support of the article title's claim in any of the above sources, I stand by my point; if there's useful information that has been added here, merge it. If there's nothing else, delete. Unless there are sources that we've all missed, that is; I think it could be a strong article, but maybe not right now. Master of Puppets  - Call me MoP! :D  12:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, these are exactly the kinds of things we look from a gay icon, despite mischaracterizing and disparaging each of them, extended interviews about her appeal to gay fans, talking about her bisexuality, doing a gay tour of a major city. You may have never met or understand what a gay icon is but certainly others disagree with your assessment. Are there more serious articles and subjects to be written about? Yes, but we cover many nuanced popculture subjects and the intersection of Lady gaga and LGBT people seems never ending. A quick google search per WP:Before would have shown that. -- Banj e  b oi   02:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've stated before, I was fully aware of each and every one of those sources. I spent a fair bit making sure that I wasn't putting a good article up for deletion. However, just because she's close-knit with the gay community doesn't mean she's an icon. Ellen DeGeneres is a gay icon, and has been acknowledged as such by the mainstream, widespread media. Lady Gaga, while admittedly quite proud of her homosexual side, hasn't yet reached that level, which is why this article isn't up to par. Master of Puppets  - Call me MoP! :D  03:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge into Lady Gaga There is no reason for a separate article for this. It's like having Lady Gaga's Personal Life as a main article. This is just something that should easily be a section in her page. She's not been around long enough to have her gay icon status made encyclopedic - as has been pointed out already. Electriccitrus (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Lady Gaga as someone else suggested, we can revisit in twenty years... --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Lady Gaga - seems like a no brainer. Artw (talk)
 * Merge to Lady Gaga. Billbowery (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Lady Gaga. All of the information that's not already present at Lady Gaga has been merged there. POKERdance talk/ contribs 20:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge I really dont understand why ANY artist needs a "as a gay icon" article. Portillo (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be perfectly valid if the original main article needed splitting due to size... but that's not the case here.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge - not enough independent material or coverage to justify an individual article. Ironholds (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge into Lady Gaga. Well sourced with several direct quotes. TomCat4680 (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge I am going to have to say merge on this one NOT redirect. Ikip (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge Merge because the topic is logically covered by the Lady Gaga article, and that article didn't need to split for any reason (it's not nearly big enough for that.)- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per abundant sources that could be used to evelvate this to at least a good article. Highly noteable subject that deserves a dedicated article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge Yes, this fits in better with the current Lady Gaga article. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and NOT redirect. --Cyclopia (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Page has already been merged; not keeping this page as a redirect is rather ridiculous, especially since you provide no reason for deleting it. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, Century Gothic, Verdana;">POKERdance talk/ contribs 01:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Any viable content that is not presently in the main article should be merged to it. After examining the sources, I don't think they provide evidence for the suitability of this particular topic. There is a difference between being on the way to being a gay icon and actually being one. If there were some strong, reliable sources that named her as a gay icon then this topic would be valid but thus far, there doesn't seem to be any source that indisputably names her as a gay icon. I think the article discusses her relationship with the gay community rather than her as a gay icon. I think the way in which the article and duplicate material in the main article is worded currently is factually incorrect and the writing should be altered to reflect the sources and state she is on the way to being a gay icon as opposed to "Lady Gaga [...] is often considered to be a gay icon."  Seraphim  &hearts;  00:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If merger has already taken place, the article history must be preserved for GDFL, so deleting the redirect is not an option. Yob  Mod  15:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of this and I didn't mention deletion. Or did you mean to reply to Pokerface/Cyclopia? Seraphim  &hearts;  16:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge no icon material in the sources, yet. Hekerui (talk) 07:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong merge to Lady Gaga. She could be an icon, but this sub-article is still not needed (yet). Only artists with huge and lengthy careers need subarticles on their distinct fanbases (like Madonna or Janet Jackson). Yob  Mod  15:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Merge there is not enough notability for a seperate icon, the number of users who will think to search the title of this page is limited. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC))
 * 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.