Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Fusari

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. Given the sockstrike, we have no support for deletion. asilvering (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Fusari

[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)

~~Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:INDEPENDENT.~~

Per WP:INVALIDBIO, this article hangs onto relevance through the subject's passing involvement with notable figures. The subject is not independently notable, and certainly not one worthy of a stand-alone article.

The article lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources that provide substantial information about Fusari’s career and contributions. The majority of available sources focus predominantly on his association with Lady Gaga, particularly their professional collaborations and subsequent legal disputes. This reliance on coverage tied to another individual’s notability does not satisfy the criteria for a standalone article. Without independent and in-depth coverage, the subject does not meet the necessary standards for notability on Wikipedia. Brickto (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC) striking comments by confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I mostly agree and wouldn't mind a Merge with Lady Gaga (if she doesn't already have this dispute info with Fusari). Searching only Google News, I found two articles somewhat independent from Lady Gaga this Billboard article/interview touching on both the dispute and his career prior. Also review journal published a mini pieace in 2017, somewhat independent from the disputes with Gaga. He produced one Will Smith song, and is a member of a band that doesn't have a wiki page. Maybe if we can find another independent source with SIGCOV, like review journal, the article can be safely saved. LastJabberwocky (talk) 05:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Took a look, there seems to be a section on the Lady Gaga article that covers the situation. I looked at the sources to see if maybe there had been something prior to the court case, but the sources there also seem to be from articles about the legal dispute. I checked out the review journal article, and I don’t know why but something about the fact that the article is literally called “The man who named Lady Gaga is his own man now”just reinforces the assumption that this person really is not notable separate from his association to Lady Gaga. Maybe I’m being too bureaucratic lol. Brickto (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Forgot to include in the argument that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The subject seems to only be notable because of his former involvement with someone who is very notable. Lady Gaga’s notability isn’t passed down to the subject. He needs to be notable separate from her, and I just can’t seem to find anything that would suggest he is.

~~Brickto (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep: All that NOTINHERITED says is that someone needs to meet GNG on their own. The coverage can be of their relationship with a famous person, it just needs to be sigcov. The relevant line is 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. We have several significant profiles of Fusari himself: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Then there is also a decent amount of coverage of his 2010 lawsuit against Gaga. Meets GNG, imo. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment: The Morning Call in Allentown PA I won’t challenge. That one is precisely the kind of article one should be receiving if they are notable.

The other three:

"The man who named Lady Gaga is his own man now"

"Rob Fusari helped guide Lady Gaga to the top of the charts"

"From Gaga hit maker to drag star"
The fact alone that her name is in the title is illustrating the point that his relevance is through her. It’s one thing if she is mentioned in the article, but in the title? Of pretty much every existing article about the guy..? I mean.. alright.. I just thought the standards for notability were higher than that on Wikipedia. I thought it was perhaps WP:TOOSOON and that waiting until not all mentions of him revolved around Lady Gaga would be a good idea. Maybe I need to learn to be more of an Inclusionist. I’ll work on it. Brickto (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, it's not surprising that a figure as influential as Gaga has brought a few people along to notability with her. (See also: Michael Polansky, Cynthia Germanotta). I think the profiles that I linked all have substantial biographical info on Fusari, but why would we expect them not to mention the most notable thing he has been affiliated with? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Knee jerk reaction? The Michael Polansky article should be deleted also, and probably the Cynthia Germanotta article as well. Just being honest haha. Brickto (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
Comment: Wow. I am actually shocked by the Michael Polansky article. I proposed a merge. I really think it should be nominated for deletion though. Brickto (talk) 07:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified by Eddie 891 that has a lot more information than just the Lady Gaga story and also shown in this earlier version of the article here before it was gutted by the nominator when adding references would have been a possible option. Passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's enough independent coverage focused on the subject that meets WP:GNG. 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 07:29, 25 April 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.