Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stan Polley

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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Stan Polley

Stan Polley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Wholly non-notable outside of some mismanagement and some legal issues. The article is entirely unsourced. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There are articles on Wiki that refer to artists or artist managers who have had less effect within the music business. Polley managed many more artists than are listed in the article and they may be included to validate his effect. Sourcing can be corrected as well.-- ZincOrbie (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: The following was posted on 3 April, 2006 regarding sourcing and discussions of notability/relevance as far back as 30 January, 2006. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 17:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. Sourcing isn't exactly my favorite thing to do. If the consensus is to delete the article I think it would be a shame, but also a relief as I can get past the vandal who has been haunting the article for the past several months.-- ZincOrbie (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, or merge. The article clearly asserts notability. It might not be a bad idea to start afresh it with, however, and using inline citations, but if the question is "Should Wikipedia have an article or section on this person?" I think the answer is almost certainly "yes". --kingboyk (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Badfinger, which already covers the lawsuit adequately. Other than the single book Without You: The Tragic Story of Badfinger, I can find no in-depth coverage of Polley's career, and this article gives the controversy WP:NPOV#Undue weight. We have no independent sources which could help us judge whether the accusations are legitimate or whether Polley had any legitimacy as a promoter other than this one case. This is in every way a WP:COATRACK and if a coatrack is hte only article possible we must reconsider notability. --Dhartung | Talk 05:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - featured on VH1, for one. // Gargaj (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep; work done for Badfinger plus verifiable involvement in newsworthy bribery incident and later criminal case amount to notability. --MCB (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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.