Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Minnesota

Points of interest related to Minnesota on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Minnesota. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Minnesota|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Minnesota. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Minnesota/archive

Palisade Rail Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable bridge. SL93 (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Minnesota. SL93 (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of crossings of the Upper Mississippi River. Per Wikipedia:NBUILD, if an infrastructure piece is of unclear notability it should redirect to a broader article or list. Merging not needed because it's a list that already contains this bridge. Definitely shouldn't be a standalone article. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As creator of page, now agree with the reasoning for deleting this article, should be kept in List of crossings of the Upper Mississippi River. OakGust00 (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Commnet :seems like an interesting historic bridge, though better sources would be need to be found, as the writers of below likely did:
  • http://johnmarvigbridges.org/new/bridge.php?id=784
  • http://www.johnweeks.com/river_mississippi/pages02/palisaderr.html
  • https://www.bridgehunter.com/bridge/47670

Djflem (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm not sure any of those qualify as reliable sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    But they do provide information for research.Djflem (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of crossings of the Upper Mississippi River, where the bridge is already covered. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Polansky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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]

Dale Ahlquist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not seem to meet any of the qualifications in WP:ACADEMIC. Perhaps meets WP:BASIC but I don't think so; he has been interviewed as an expert on G.K. Chesterton, but that's not really significant coverage on Ahlquist himself.

Additionally, article was created by User:AmChestertonSoc, likely undisclosed paid editing; article overall is written like a WP:RESUME or WP:PROMOTION, and relies on primary sourcing. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, and Minnesota. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep is going to pass WP:Author. There's also some extensive (negative) writing about him[1] Jahaza (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Good catch on that article - I'm not sure why that didn't pop up in my Google News search. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 18:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 20:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I tried my hand at cleaning up some of the promotional writing (could still do some more probably). And I would like clarification on how he meets WP:AUTHOR Moritoriko (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there's fewer book reviews than I expected to find. Jahaza (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]