Deletion of Gay anthem (2nd nomination)

Comment: per . Books cover the topic: http://books.google.de/books?id=DWdXRylPs44C&pg=PA72&dq=gay+anthem&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xQtEU6uiHYj_ygO1vIKgDg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=gay%20anthem&f=false, http://books.google.de/books?id=f0fbSlGN8uUC&pg=PA344&dq=gay+anthem&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xQtEU6uiHYj_ygO1vIKgDg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=gay%20anthem&f=false, http://books.google.de/books?id=n9C-5XRGg4AC&pg=PA58&dq=%22gay+anthem%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FwxEU_7dCYrpywPO3IHICg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22gay%20anthem%22&f=false. I remind the nominator what while  is a random essay,  is policy, and it asks us to fix articles if they have issues, not to delete them
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:TNT||WP:ATD)

Comment: I disagree that the topic is notable.  applies
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:CRUFT)

Comment: The topic is notable. That the article is a mess is besides the point. It can be |nuked. ''→ Call me
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: 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 , 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:CRUFT)