Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Polansky

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 no consensus‎. asilvering (talk) 06:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Polansky

[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)

This article fails WP:GNG with flying colors. First, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. If you remove the relationship this person has with Lady Gaga, then you would be hard pressed to find anything written about them. The subject may be accomplished, but there are absolutely no independent, reliable sources speaking on the subject in a way that isn’t mere mention. How can the CEO of a company have their own article before the company they are the CEO of is even notable enough for its own article? Marry Lady Gaga? Doesn’t meet the notability requirement. Brickto (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)— Brickto (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of 9t5 (talk · contribs). GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 07:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete his business ventures get vastly overshadowed by a relationship with Gaga and (to a lesser extent) the songs they wrote together. Little to none of the publicity this guy gets is focused on individual merits, and the more I think about this, the harder it becomes to find any credible sources on him that don't largely revolve around her and their relationship. Even pieces where Polansky is a central topic devote more attention to that part of him than anything else. Having a romance or even marriage to a famous person doesn't automatically entitle someone to a page, so I'm inclined to think we have a failure of WP:BIO here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and CREATIVE. Seems obvious to me the subject has been profiled in multiple reliable sources. Sources like this are specifically focused on him and his accomplishments. He has co-written a dozen or so songs that have charted and no one is suggesting he is only notable because of his relationship with Lady Gaga. This biography should be expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - At least for now, I agree with the nominator. Note that every single one of the 16 sources currently used in the article have Lady Gaga's name in their titles, but only a few have Polansky's name. The same is true of the Billboard article found by the last voter. Beyond that article, I can find nothing else about his business ventures or songwriting that is not dependent on his connection with Lady Gaga. WP:NOTINHERITED is the obvious guideline here, unless he emerges as the topic of additional dedicated news coverage in the future. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an article title includes "Lady Gaga" doesn't mean the reporting is not focused on the subject. Of course writers are going to sneak "Lady Gaga" into the title in an attempt to increase readership. There are many Wikipedia biographies for songwriters who have (co)/authored many songs that have charted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...and then they talk about her more than him. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer: Lady Gaga is also the primary subject of these titles as well.. “Who is Lady Gaga's fiancé?”, “Inside Lady Gaga's love story” —— these are articles about Lady Gaga. The subject of the nominated article doesn’t become notable by being in a relationship with someone who is notable. It may seem that way due to the fact that Lady Gaga is arguably one of the most notable figures of the 21st century thus far, but it isn’t. Polansky simply is not notable enough for his own article, and it is WP:TOOSOON. Brickto (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)— Brickto (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of 9t5 (talk · contribs). GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 06:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , more than enough available sources to further expand the article --Sricsi (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sricsi; Could you list these sources? The subject is not notable independent of his relationship with Lady Gaga. There are plenty of sources about the subject that cover him and his role in his company? I can’t find any. WP:TOOSOON Brickto (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)— Brickto (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of 9t5 (talk · contribs). GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 06:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: It looks good to me, and I don't fancy wasting time with a sockpuppet's nomination. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above keepers. And anyone who proposes using a blade of grass is notable per se. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 11:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. It seems good, 'nuff said. He's more than the relationship ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 17:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SNUGGUMS comment, as he isn't notable in the public eye and basically a private individual who's only connection to fame is Lady Gaga; I fear that this Wikipedia article might be entrenching too much on Gaga's personal private life. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A private individual? He is attending film premieres and red carpets, and he has co-written multiple songs that have achieved tremendous chart success. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only public events he appears to attend are those that involve his fiancé. Outside of that and her photos of him, we don't see much of this man photographed, and both interviews with him that I can think of are joint ones discussing Gaga's music where she also is questioned on the matter and gives comments to journalists. If we were to subtract these things, then at least compared to Ms. Germanotta here and many other celebrities, Polansky does sound rather private overall even when not completely hiding from the press or her fanbase. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I still think CREATIVE outweighs the fact that perhaps he's a relatively more private person. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By virtue of being engaged to one of the top 10 most famous women in the world, yes, he will be prefaced as "Lady Gaga's fiancé." If you can believe it, François-Henri Pinault is still called "Salma Hayek's husband". But I digress. With regard to Mr. Polansky here, I say take away the Lady Gaga of it all and look at the accomplishments in business. I see notability there. Again, yes the sources will talk about Lady Gaga but I think he knows what he signed up for there. This Michael Polansky man has fashion magazines doing articles about him and he's not even in the fashion industry. Trillfendi (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited (per Doomsdayer520 above). Is he independently notable? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - I have been avoiding commenting here for a number of days since I noticed this one, and for much the same reason as Bri - I can't be bothered to put in effort on a sock puppet's nomination. But this is not a policy reason to keep. It looks good is not policy based. He's engaged to marry someone famous is not policy based (NOTINHERITED). The sourcing is poor, and I don't think we are at GNG for an independently reliable subject. Should it be deleted? I haven't done the deep search for sources required, but I suspect so. If this closed as no consensus, I would not mind. It would give those arguing keep a couple of months of grace to find sources before any potential renom by an editor in good standing. Or we could draftify as it is new, and as it may well be that more sources will arise soon. But we are not at a keep, I think. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "He's engaged to marry someone famous is not policy based (NOTINHERITED)." No one is suggesting he deserves an article for his relationship status or because of Gaga. Take away his engagement and he is still a songwriter with an impressive chart record. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only see songs co-written, which would suggest a redirect to the artist who sang the song. If he performed a song that charted that would be different per WP:MUSICBIO. I am not seeing that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't interpret WP:MUSICBIO as applying only to vocalists but not songwriters. Nonetheless, there's plenty of secondary coverage focused on him. The article has 18 sources that mention him by name in the title. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These look like primary news reporting (see WP:PRIMARYNEWS), and, per Doomsdayer520 above, mostly about Lady Gaga. This would be a prime case of a subject that is better dealt with as a subject on the other page. Thus I would be content with a merge (it would clearly be a limited merge). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just because someone is in a close relationship with a famous person doesn't automatically disqualify them from notability. WP:INHERITED says:

Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG.

There are secondary sources (such as Today and People) that have collected primary sources like the Vogue interview. They dedicate significant coverage through multiple paragraphs to the subject. The subject meets the general notability guidelines. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 04:37, 11 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.