Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael J Coudrey

Michael J Coudrey

[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)

Covert upe WP:ADMASQ article on a non notable entrepreneur who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence fails WP:GNG. The sources used in the article are hardly about the article’s subject. A WP:BEFORE also yields nothing to corroborate notability claims. Celestina007 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this article for a number of reasons and believe the subject does meet WP:GNG. #1. Subject has been personally quoted by The New York Times, Politico, HuffPost, and Fox News. This means the journalists reached out to the subject to request a quote from him to include in their articles. This indicates the subject is reputable in the particular topics, often biotech and US politics. #2. 5 MSM media outlets indicate him as the CEO of YukoSocial, a "social media engine for US Politicians." If he works with US elected officials, it gives credibility to the notion of reputability. #3. He is verified on his social media platforms. This indicates the subject has passed the notability requirements of social media companies. Yes, the article may need clean up, but no it should not be deleted. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — you are more than welcome to bring to this AFD any reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Please kindly address the COI concerns as well. Celestina007 (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Celestina007 Addressed on my talk page. Your comments appeared slightly hostile, RE: "I know you are online" etc. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I've pulled together a few more notability links that should meet the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG. I intend to work these into the article to improve it. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JalenPhotos2, The first source is re-echoing the subject of the article and fails to meet WP:INDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV isn’t met, the second and the third are laughable as both sources do not reference the subject of our discussion and he is merely mentioned in passing hence WP:SIGCOV is again not met. More concerning is, why have you yet not disclosed your COI with the subject of your article as required? Why wouldn’t you disclose your COI with the subject of the article or do you not know how to declare a COI? See WP:COI for assistance. I am logging a second warning on your TP. If I have to warn you again to disclose a COI I am reporting you to ANI, for WP:NOTHERE purposes where I’d ensure an indefinite block is evoked on you for violating our TOU. Furthermore WP:ADMASQ falls under WP:SPAM which constitutes what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Celestina007 (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007, You first nominated my article for deletion. Then you posted on my talk page asking if I was doing paid editing work, and I responded that I have never been paid directly or indirectly to make any edits, whatsoever. You then demanded I add a paid tag to my profile, when this would be inaccurate. You are now claiming I have a COI and I wrote an article masquerading as an advertisement, and then threatened an indefinite block. This harassment is not okay! Perhaps I am not understanding your line of reasoning, but what is the basis for these hostile communications/allegations? Please respond on my talk page. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JalenPhotos2, I have asked you five times what the connection is between you and the subject of your article is and five times you have been evasive about responding to that. Your comments imply that you aren’t guilty of anything, fine, so could you please explain how the image on the article is your own work yet you haven’t disclose a COI? How any why is that? Celestina007 (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007, easily explained and posted on my talk page in response to your question. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JalenPhotos2, this explanation is improbable as it is as shady as they come and yes even if I were to believe you, that appears to be COI, the photo was taken upclose. Furthermore a WP:BEFORE shows the subject of the article is blatantly non notable. I’m going ahead to log in a third warning on your tp. Celestina007 (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007, We had a team of 3 photographers working the event. I was interested in learning more about the attendees as many have successes in business, and I run a small business. It is very probable, because its the truth. Really not okay that you're logging a 3rd warning. You've been nothing but hostile, instead of guiding and helping. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JalenPhotos2, no! you took the photo upclose and your excuse are negligible at best. Asides that why did you create a promotional article for s non notable individual? Do you trouble comprehending WP:GNG if yes, then submitting via AFC should be the best course of action since you aren’t experienced or are having troubles understanding how GNG works. Celestina007 (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007, It is not okay that you are making an allegation like that and then deciding it's the "truth", when it is not. It is not a promotional article, I tried my best to follow guidelines and believed the subject is notable. I still feel very strongly that he is notable and should be included in Wikipedia. Next time I will use AFC to avoid these toxic interactions/bullying. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JalenPhotos2 Lucky enough for both of us I have AFC pseudo right, so if you attempt to create another WP:ADMASQ via AFC, I would be waiting for you and when I do I’m taking you to WP:COIN or even worse, ANI. Furthermore if(emphasis on if)you are evading a block now might just be a good time to cease and desist from such doltish behavior. Celestina007 (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking through the sources, nearly all of them are only quoting him, which does not meet the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG. While it is good on him that he is CEO of a political organization, that doesn't give notability under GNG unless reliable sources provide significant coverage regarding that. Being verified on social media also doesn't give notability under GNG, it just means you're popular enough on that particular social media site. Also I would like to note that source 10, the only source that has significant coverage, allows you to buy an interview and decide what's written which makes it non-independent and thus unusable in terms of notability. Jumpytoo Talk 00:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per JalenPhotos2. The sources in the article (except for IMDB) seem reliable, including the ones indicated by JalenPhotos2. Though the article needs a little clean-up, it's good enough to pass WP:GNG. As for the issue regarding WP:COI, the nominator's accusation against JalenPhotos2 is baseless. He has no relation to the subject at all. Working hard to look for sources for a certain subject does not mean he is related to the latter. Therefore, there is no conflict of interest involved whatsoever. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I agree with your assessment of WP:GNG. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the entire source material. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 06:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. The sources are reliable but not significant coverage of the subject. Mere quotes of the subject do not constitute in depth coverage. Further interviews lack the independence necessary to pass GNG. This is not even close to meeting our notability criteria.4meter4 (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @4meter4 I would tend to disagree. WP:SIGCOV in Heavy, whereas the subject is the topic of the entire article. Sig cov in Patch, whereas the subject is the topic of the entire article, Sig cov in Science Magazine, whereas the subject is not the entire topic but is significantly more than a trivial mention as per WP:SIGCOV Policy. Subject also has been personally quoted by The New York Times, Politico, HuffPost, and Fox News , satisfying WP:GNG Reliable, Sources, Presumed criteria. In regards to Presumed, these quoted pieces (which are more than a trivial mention) creates an assumption that a subject merits its own article because it is contradictory to 'what Wikipedia is not', particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Considering this would you reconsider or update your position? JalenPhotos2 (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — @4meter4 I would also implore you to examine two further sources from local news and Reuters News. Subjects comments are the reason both articles where created, with the former having the subject be the main topic of the entire source material. Again, Presumed criteria creates assumption that the subject merits its own article on Wikipedia. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]