Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madonna as a gay icon

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There is a clear consensus that these articles should be kept. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna as a gay icon

[edit]

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

Madonna as a gay icon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Janet Jackson as a gay icon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Judy Garland as gay icon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Back in the late 2000s, various people responded to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 24#Category:Gay icons by creating spinoff essays about certain celebrities' status as gay icons which could be kept in Category:LGBT culture as an effective bypass of the CFD result -- but what's much less clear by 2021 standards is why any of these need to exist as standalone topics, separately from the person's relationship with their LGBTQ fan base being contextualized in their main article itself. Similar essays about Cher and Lady Gaga were long ago redirected to their respective BLPs, for comparison's sake -- but just like those, each of these is just a tossed salad of stuff that belongs (and/or already is) in the main article, mixed with minor anecdotal trivia like the RuPaul's Drag Race "Night of 1000 Madonnas/Kimonogate" incident, Janet advocating for safer sex (which what socially responsible celebrity in the 1990s didn't?) and the rumoured but unconfirmed bisexuality of Vincente Minnelli, that would be WP:UNDUE to place much weight on at all. (Whatever Vincente Minnelli's sexuality was or wasn't, it really doesn't have much to do with underpinning Judy Garland's place in queer culture.) These just aren't all that well thought out or particularly substantial as articles -- they're not even especially good essays -- and I just don't see why they're necessary as separate topics from the biographical articles that all three women already have. Bearcat (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not whether these women are sourceable as gay icons or not — they all clearly are. The question is whether their status as gay icons needs to be treated as separate topics, with their own separate articles, from the biographical articles that all three women already have. In other words, it isn't a question of "Is Madonna sourceable as a gay icon?" — it's a question of "Do Madonna as a person and Madonna as a gay icon need to simultaneously exist as standalone articles independently of each other, or is Madonna's status as a gay icon better addressed within Madonna's BLP?" (And repeat the same question for both Janet Jackson and Judy Garland, obviously.) Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These articles are the worst precedent set in Wikipedia. I have never seen such blasphemy in my life. Painting a person like Judy Garland as a homosexual is blasphemy and a defamation against the woman who was married to a man! This is utter cursing, and I know how I feel when someone says I am LGBT. These articles foment division and hatred towards the heterosexual people and is a sign that these criminals are desperate to see at least 10% of the world population converted to LGBT before their mortal lifespan is finished. If this continues the fiefdom of LGBT will dominate and completely make Wikipedia's suffix meaningless.
Just take a look what they have done to American animation. Armed with their liberal news media they have completely hijacked films such as Luca and Mitchells vs. Machines. No longer does it mean to say that if you have a girlfriend or a boyfriend, it means that you are gay because you are the same gender! What utter nonsense. Thousands of prominent authors stated they have boyfriends and girlfriends. Can we rule them as homosexuals? No, only if ultra liberal news media like NBC come to their defense and spin tales of how the rainbow is LGBT...if you see a rainbow outside...or wait if you wear a rainbow pin...Oh that must be LGBT! This is the frenzy of avarice they have against the human kind who continue to live the life nature intended.
This is an encyclopedia and should be respected like one. The more these people who write these articles, the more Wikipedia ceases to become a compendium of non-biased knowledge book. If anyone has the guts to read what a print encyclopedia used to look like, which I thankfully have they will realize truly how much this Wikipedia has been hijacked by this fiefdom. It used to be written by those who drew in inspiration from the vast print encyclopedias they read in 2000s. The fact that Wikipedia doesn't have moderators is its greatest weakness which has been taken advantage of in the last few years by editors who never opened a single page of the quintessence of encyclopedias: book encyclopedias. There must be a crackdown on these type of articles, because as I mentioned before, media will do anything to paint animated films as LGBT when they do not have anything to with them. Armed with all those citations these people will create even more articles on how Obama was a gay icon and continue their way down to history picking on people that doesn't have anything to do with LGBT.7falcon23 (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped reading at "painting a person like Judy Garland as a homosexual", because nobody is doing anything of the sort. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I almost feel bad that you spent the time typing this screed out when no one is going to bother reading past the third sentence. Maybe try not to be such a buffoon next time. Mlb96 (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes these articles are delete-worthy because as a user pointed out, the articles follow WP:SYNTHESIS. The policy clearly states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." There is no proof the Madonna or Garland is a gay icon. They never explicitly stated they are to followed by gay people. Only people who have done polls or found themes from their songs caused them to fit the criterion of gay icon. The creator of the article synthesized all those articles and implied the suggestion that they are gay icons. Also why does the Judy Garland template deserve the gay article anyway. It seems a disrespect to the actress. What if I write an article on how Garland was a music icon or a movie icon. Why does an article on being a gay icon deserve more weight when her lifestyle is based as a singer and actress? Where are the articles on those instances?
And this is absolutely insane. Some musician's lyrics mirrors the gay experience. Then one reporter asked her she is being followed. Her reply was "I don't care less." Afterwards, thousands of articles are written on how themes of the song is similar to LGBTQ themes, as if implying she wrote it just for them. Here is that same pattern of hijacking. As if the songs were dedicated only to the LGBTQ people and not to the actual people who weren't gay that Garland actually wanted to represent. And then suddenly she is a gay icon! So if I started to write songs, and the LGBT people started to say how the themes mirrors theirs. Then a conveyor belt of articles are written on how my songs are LGBT. Then suddenly someone puts the article "I am a gay icon: under my template in Wikipedia when I am a religious person. Is that respectful of that person? Also this is just the beginning. I talked about animation before, and these article creators are ready to write something on Frozen. There are many articles from the liberal press written on how Frozen 2 songs is a dedication to the LGBT people. There have zero evidence to back up the claim, and nary a word of this is confirmed by the song writers. Yet there are articles that conclude it is for LGBT people. I won't be surprised if I see an article under Elsa's template saying she is a gay icon, forever ruining the childish innocence and forever traumatizing the viewers who aspired to be like Elsa only to learn she rather not marry a man and only marry a woman.7falcon23 (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC) double !vote struck Beccaynr (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply not true that a synthesis of sources is needed for this topic. For example this book from a major publisher states directly that both Madonna and Judy Garland are gay icons (which is unrelated to whether they are/were gay themselves) and there are many more. All that needs to be decided is whether this aspect should be covered in a separate article or in the main articles about those people. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not whether these women are sourceable as gay icons or not — they all clearly are. The question is whether their status as gay icons needs to be treated as separate topics, with their own separate articles, from the biographical articles that all three women already have. In other words, it isn't a question of "Is Madonna sourceable as a gay icon?" — it's a question of "Do Madonna as a person and Madonna as a gay icon need to simultaneously exist as standalone articles independently of each other, or is Madonna's status as a gay icon better addressed within Madonna's BLP?" (And repeat the same question for both Janet Jackson and Judy Garland, obviously.) Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for following up - the sources also seem to support standalone articles per WP:NOTMERGE, i.e. The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles and The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, because Gay icon is a discrete subject. Beccaynr (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The question still is not whether "the broad concept of gay icons" is a discrete subject from Madonna, either — it's whether "Madonna as a gay icon" is a discrete subject from Madonna. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is the third AfD for the "Madonna as a gay icon" article, and since the 2008 AfD and 2010 AfD closed as keep, there appear to be many more sources to support the presumption of notability for a standalone article on the topic per WP:GNG. Beccaynr (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of these articles are about their subjects' involvement with LGBTQ+ affiliations in general and moreso support the claim that they're LGBTQ+ activists rather than simply gay icons.
A lot of the articles' content is subjective. Even if the claim that the subject is a gay icon is backed up by evidence, the way the articles present it as fact constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS and likely original research. The Madonna source polling people on their opinion of if she is a gay icon does not verify the egregious claim that "Madonna is a gay icon embraced by the gay community" and I doubt any WP:RELIABLE source would. The articles also provide virtually zero context for the point of view of their subject being a gay icon; they do not indicate anywhere how prevalent or significant that position is. Lastly, the articles are all aspects dependent on the life of their respective celeberty, and do not warrant a stand-alone article. We don't have a "Madonna as a child" article or "Janet Jackson's musical legacy" article. I think the articles should be reworded in a neutral point of view, have subjective and undue content removed, and be merged into their respective main articles. —FORMALDUDE (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:NEXIST, The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article, and there are a wide variety of independent and reliable sources identified in this discussion that appear capable of objectively addressing WP:V, WP:SYNTH, WP:RS, and WP:GNG concerns described in the !vote above. Beccaynr (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's nothing wrong whatsoever with creating subarticles about aspects of a subject (WP:SPLIT). Audie Murphy, for example, has separate articles on his careers as a soldier and as an actor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes WP:GNG Nitesh003 (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AfD is not cleanup, but an article about someone as a "gay icon" should focus on evidence that the person is considered a gay icon. Who has described this person as a gay icon and why? Being a gay icon means being the focus of attention and love from, specifically, gay fandoms including in modern times LGBTQ fandoms. Supporting LGBTQ causes is not equivalent to being a gay icon, otherwise Joe Biden would be a gay icon, which AFAIK he is not. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Indeed, e.g. Joe Biden’s inaugural prayer service was ‘the most LGBT-inclusive in history’ with blessing for trans and gay people (PinkNews, 2021, "After some toned-down hymns accompanied by an organist, gay icon Patti LaBelle appeared to give a rousing performance of "The Star-Spangled Banner"."), Gay icon Cher is set to headline a virtual LGBT+ fundraiser for Joe Biden (PinkNews, 2020), Cher Sings 'Happiness Is a Thing Called Joe' at Biden Benefit, (Advocate, 2020), "The gay icon was the final act..."), Do you believe in life after Trump? Cher sure does and wants to help Biden win (Los Angeles Times, 2020, "As a beloved gay icon and ally, Cher will be in good company...In related efforts by the Biden campaign, on Sept. 14, singer and gay icon Cyndi Lauper will appear at another LGBTQ+ event.") Beccaynr (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I certainly agree that Wikipedia is hardly the place to decide who counts as a gay icon and who doesn't, since it is entirely subjective. Except, there are some people so famous as gay icons, and their status as such is so cemented by tsunamis of scholarly and journalistic material, that arguing they aren't gay icons and then deleting well-sourced and balanced essay pages/sections on the matter is extremely contrary to GNG. As a similar example, as Wikipedians surely we can't spend all day arguing over which musicians count as soul divas - and yet if you argue Aretha Franklin isn't popularly seen as such a thing, you're ignoring basically all critical opinion on the matter. OhioShmyo (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Judy Garland. Obviously a substantiated and notable topic, but would definitely overwhelm any potential merge target. Delete Madonna and Janet Jackson (maybe a very selective merge) - a list of pro-gay-rights statements is not sufficient to justify/substantiate an article on someone being a gay icon. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per WP:SIGCOV. Clearly a WP:BEFORE search was not done by any of the delete votes. Google books and google scholar alone provide a host of sources, not to mention what’s available in press publications. My university library search shows academic journal articles in queer and gender studies covering these topics. Frankly, the Madonna article is missing a lot of key underlying content from much earlier in her career, such as her mainstreaming of vogue from gay subculture and the impact that had on gay men. The impact of Madonna: Truth or Dare which focused on the stories of her gay backup dancers, and the way her outspoken support during the AIDS crises of the 80s and 90s all impacted the gay community and influenced her status as an icon.4meter4 (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC) 4meter4 (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Madonna article. Despite now, every mainstream diva is a "gay icon" her main article isn't focused in sections such as "Other interest" or "Politics" (like with Cher) and this sub-article easily can have sections such as "criticism" or "activism" since her relation with the LGBT commmunity is vast (even before fame). Also, numerous LGBT-oriented publications such as Advocate and Out have dedicated whole articles to Madonna as a gay icon/relationship with LGBT community as well more mainstream music media like Billboard. As far I remember, she attained scholarly and academic comments within this area. No opinion about Judy Garland or Janet Jackson articles, but I don't oppose if both articles are deleted or we keep them. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, or keep none of them at all. Could these be condensed and merged to their main pages? You bet. However, I think they are all deserving of their own stand alone topics as per sources from each page. It was important to me to see major icons like Madonna and Janet, more so the latter as she looks like me, be so accepting in a time where being accepting of the LGBTQ community wasn’t the mainstream thing to do. Garland was doing this far beyond their years. It’s important that these articles exists on Wikipedia. Each of these women meant something to someone who identified with them because of era, race, etc. TruthGuardians (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This subject passes GNG, and there is too much material out there to make it a subsection of a larger article, like gay icon or LGBT activism. It's really as simple as that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Judy Garland as gay icon. It clearly passes WP:GNG and is too long in its current state to be merged into Judy Garland without having to make significant cuts. For the other two, I'm neutral on whether to keep or merge. Colin M (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Madonna_as_a_gay_icon&oldid=1033331751"