Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaylor (theory)

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. ✗plicit 14:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gaylor (theory)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Gaylor (theory) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The subject and content of the article is infringing on BLP policies, with citations of more inferior sources than reliable sources. The article is mostly, if not entirely WP:FANCRUFT. This topic is already covered appropriately in the Swifties article in its own section, without superfluous stories and fancruft-y details. ℛonherry☘ 13:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Journalism, News media, Music, and Popular culture. ℛonherry☘ 13:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a WP:BEFORE search finds several academic sources on the theory; see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 to name just a few. The subject is clearly notable. Even if majority of the page is currently fancruft, it most certainly can be written neutrally. jolielover♥talk 05:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per jolielover, and an article being poorly written is not enough of a reason to delete. It would be very helpful if you could mark the problematic content on either the article or the talk page, though. Based5290 :3 (talk) 09:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per jolielover 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - An earlier article on this so-called "theory" was overwhelmingly deleted in 2023 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaylors. That one was about the group of people who believe the theory, and now that theory seems to have gotten some analysis from bored professors that can apparently support this newer article. That's it for me because you can expect this discussion to collapse into sniping between believers and nonbelievers. Good luck everyone. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose you can accuse any academic article of being created by "bored professors"; all analysis is ultimately done by people interested by such topics who dedicate years to their niche. I don't see how that's relevant. The theory is important in understanding human psychology, celebrity fandom and parasocial relationships. I agree that the article needs some cropping and more focus on the psychology behind such beliefs, and any real world consequences it may have caused, but as it goes, it is culturally significant and notable. jolielover♥talk 14:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are enough citation to prove the notabilty, clearly paasing WP:BURDEN, WP:SOURCE and WP:NPOV SATavr (talk) 06:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per jolielover. Tekrmn (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2025 (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.