Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Gordon (businessman)

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 delete. There is a general consensus that notability is not met here. I would also advise User:Martinvince that harassing other editors on a discussion board is likely to lead to a block. Black Kite (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Gordon (businessman)

Benjamin Gordon (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable businessman, passing mentions in reliable sources only, lots of blogs and other user-generated sources as references. Krutapidla2 (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment

I would like to say I am a relatively new editor, was paid by someone to make edits to this page, and was not aware it was not allowed. I was following my employer’s instructions. I have looked up the rules now and spoke to my employer. Hence, I will not post any votes due to conflict of interest, but I want to bring to your attention that the nominator Krutapidla2 seems to have a personal vendetta against Gordon, so there is a clear conflict of interest on his part. I would ask that this deletion be cancelled immediately due to his conflict of interest.

Possibly he is also a paid editor from a freelancer site that didn't get the job and now posting as personal vendetta. How else could he have known that I was hired? The client has told me he only invited 5 people to the task he had posted privately, so Krutapidla2 must be one of the 5 people.

Just to recap, this is what happened:

1) Someone posted negative defamatory content on Gordon’s page from an IP 128.8.127.130

2) Gordon hired someone on a freelancer site to provide factual content, and that someone hired me. I reverted the defamatory language and also posted factual content to expand the page

3) Krutapidla2 reverted everything, including other content I had added.

What the original Troll and “Krutapidla2” wrote are completely inaccurate, defamatory, and contrary to Wikipedia’s principles of neutrality.

He wrote: “On June 20, 2019, the SEC settled administrative securities fraud charges against Gordon.” This is not only wrong, but also extremely misleading and defamatory. Gordon was never charged with fraud. He agreed to a settlement, with no admission of any charges whatsoever, as part of a much larger case against Ability Inc.

Gordon himself was a victim of the fraud by Ability Inc and its founders. The SEC brought fraud charges against Ability’s founders (SOURCE). Gordon was the largest victim. He was the largest shareholder in a public company that lied about its financials to induce Gordon to invest. After Ability’s auditors at BDO admitted they were restating their audited financials, Gordon lost 99% of his investment. Indeed, Gordon was the sole shareholder who called publicly on Ability to provide full transparency, to prevent the founders from taking out $12 million while the company was disintegrating, and to protect public shareholder rights. The SEC investigated multiple parties, settled with Ability and Gordon on a no-admit basis, and litigated against the Ability founders, exactly as Gordon had advocated. All of this is clearly and publicly documented.

Another source.

One more source.

Gordon's Open Letter.

If you are going to say anything at all about this topic, please replace the “Krutapidla2” defamatory paragraph with a more accurate description. This would be a balanced and neutral statement:

Please check the talk page for my suggested edits.

Since I have found out I cannot add this personally due to my paid editing, I am asking other Wiki editors to please read the plain facts as I have shared them with you and add this directly, as it is the right thing to do.

I would also ask that “Krutapidla2” not be allowed to make any more edits to this page due to conflict of interest. He also has a Single Purpose Account

wp:SPA

, and appears to have broken rules. Only an experienced editor would have known how to nominate a page for deletion.

Thank you.Martinvince (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment @Martinvince This is about Mr. Gordon and the SEC:

"According to the SEC's order <...> Gordon negligently failed to take reasonable steps and conduct appropriate due diligence to ensure that Cambridge shareholders voting on the merger were provided with material and accurate information concerning Ability's business prospects, including Ability's purported ownership of a new, game-changing cellular interception product, ULIN, Ability's so-called backlog of orders from its largest customer, a police agency in Latin America, Ability's lack of actual purchase orders backing its backlog, and Ability's pipeline of possible future orders from customers."

"Gordon agreed to a cease-and-desist order, which finds that he willfully violated Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933..."

"The SEC's order requires Gordon to pay a $100,000 civil penalty, imposes a cease-and-desist order, and imposes a 12-month associational, penny stock, and investment company suspension.'"

More here [[1]] Kolma8 (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The more you post things like this, the more it shows that you are most likely a sock puppet of user:Krutapidla2 who nominated the page for deletion and was making disruptive edits. You also conveniently left out the part that says "Without admitting or denying the findings," Have you considered that most people in these cases settle even if they are not at fault because it is much cheaper to pay a fine and get it over with then fight it for years? The same exact thing happened to Elon Musk. SEC went after him over a Twitter post and he had to pay a $20million fine. If you read all that I said, Gordon himself was a victim of the fraud done by the founders of the company and lost 99% of his own investments. He was an innocent victim cut in the middle of all these. Martinvince (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Someone has already removed the defamatory part. I have no idea who it is, but thanks. Martinvince (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment All information seems correctly sourced. However there is some POV pushing sections, I think I am going to help cleanup this article. Currently I am leaning to keep the article.
  talk) 02:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Fails GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In What way?? please explain? Have you seen these sources: Yahoo, Bloomberg, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, CNBC? Also check my comment below the next vote. Martinvince (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Kolma8 (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this nominator nominated the page as a personal vandetta and he has been warned by admins on his talk page User_talk:Krutapidla2. Gordon has significant amount of coverage, including in depth articles in [Yahoo], [NY York Times], [Bloomberg]. He also has coverage in Wall Street Journal , CNBC and many other sites. There are a lot more sources in Google News, if you search.

Rather than saying "Per Nom," I ask you to please review again and disclose in detail your reasons why you think it does not meet notablity? Martinvince (talk) 09:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I searched and IMO the subject fails
  WP:ANYBIO
  see below.

*The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.

*The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field.

*The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication.

If you think that he meets the above please let me know. Thank you Kolma8 (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1- He definitely meets

WP:ANYBIO

., as it states "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below."

2-  Regarding 

WP:ANYBIO awards, he has won two Business Plan awards for "Only one to be" Harvard Business School   (2000 for 3Plex; 2010 for EcoSquid)  source 1, Source 2 / Additional In Depth Source not in the article now, Source 3

(All these are additional sources BTW, not in the article)

3- Historical Contribution: Founder of one of the first SaaS logistics companies (3Plex) - pioneer in the sector 

4-  Historical Contribution: Recognized expertise: recognized expert and source of feature articles in multiple media including NY Times, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, and CNBC 

5-  Historical Contribution:  Activist featured in the book "Bad Blood" for taking down Yale Chairman Vernon Loucks Google Books SourceMartinvince (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Martinvince. I researched your contributions on wikipedia, which history spans for about 60 days now and noticed the history of your contributions overlap with Rkoret. Both of you contributed greatly to advance the subject of this article in Wikipedia. Kolma8 (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I tried to clean up the article, but after checking the references, realized that most of them not about the subject, but stating his opinion about the subject of the article. He is mentioned as an expert, "one expert" and so on, so he is clearly an expert, but what makes him notable I'm still missing. It reads as a promotional article. Kolma8 (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Martinvince he fails your 1st point. Specifically "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." He didn't receive any significant coverage in the cited sources. He made comments on the subject of the articles, but the articles were not covering Mr. Gordon. I don't see any value to your citing the wiki and name dropping, but not providing any real support to your argument. Kolma8 (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am now suspecting that you are the same Pakastani UPE editor that has nominated this page for deletion and have reported you for investigation.

Please check these sources and tell me in what way these are not significant coverage and don’t meet notability?

1- NY Times – Major publication, in-depth coverage

2- Bloomberg Major publication, in-depth coverage

3- HARVARD Award from Harvard Business School, Passing mention, but shows notability and passes criteria for

WP:ANYBIO

4- Yahoo Finance Major publication, in depth coverage

Also there are several passing mentions including CNBC, WSJ, Forbes,

WP:BASIC

States : “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.”

In addition, Gordon has appeared as an analyst on CNBC several times and has written in Fortune and other publications.Martinvince (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing the sources. Checked them. Two were by subscriptions only -- can't comment on them; the other two do not really provide "significant coverage." I will stick to my opinion that the subject fails notability and stay with delete per my right here. Good luck to you! Kolma8 (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but Improve There are enough reliable, secondary sources in this article to pass
  WP:GNG. Some editing to reduce any unsourced facts or slanted views can be done to tidy things up a bit. I did some general clean up to streamline this and take some of the promotional feel out -- combining what were basically a couple of one-sentence sections with their own headings into the "career" section. Also - this guy is widely recognized as an expert in supply chain and logistics, as noted by several of the sources. Tennis Anyone?^Talk15:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Please note that this nominator nominated the page as a personal vandetta and he has been warned by admins on his talk page User_talk:Krutapidla2. Gordon has significant amount of coverage, including in depth articles in [Yahoo], [NY York Times], [Bloomberg]. He also has coverage in Wall Street Journal , CNBC and many other sites. There are a lot more sources in Google News, if you search.Unfortunately page is locked now due to this corrupt editor and vandalism and only admins can improve. Martinvince (talk) 09:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but Improve This is a respected expert in transport and logistics with impressive publication credentials as noted and regular appearances on CNBC and other respectable sources. Rkoret (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - please note that after reviewing the contribution of Rkoret and Martinvince I cannot help but notice some collaborative efforts in the subject of this article. Specifically Rkoret created the article. Both users contributed relatively little to Wikipedia in general. Again, just an observation as I was very surprised how rather aggressively both are campaigning for this article. Kolma8 (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Also can someone address the statement above by Martinvince: "I would like to say I am a relatively new editor, was paid by someone to make edits to this page". The more I look into the history of this page the more I am confused. Please someone with more experience help. Kolma8 (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have already disclosed that I am a paid editor if you read all the details above. However, none of my edits was accepted on the page and was reverted. I do not know who the other editor is or whether he was paid or not, but having used a paid editor has no bearing if a notable page should remain or deleted. You need to make your argument based on the page content and sources. If you find promotional language feel free to revise and I think that’s what you tried to do. But you have also removed 2 credible sources, so this is now disruptive editing. I have a feeling that you are the same Pakasteni UPE that nominated this page for deletion, using a 2nd account. I have reported you for

WP:SPA account.Martinvince (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Wow...Ok. ;) Kolma8 (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but improve as I am in agreement with that. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Per rationale provided by both Kolma8 & Alexandermcnabb. Celestina007 (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Since I am already so much invested in this, I did some more research into all this mess around this article. The article was created Rkoret, further extended in return of payment per the disclosure above by Martinvince. Mr. Grodon's photo professionally done was provided to and uploaded by Rkoretcommons [[2]], which is probably the same as Rkoret. Of course could be a coincidence. Both Rkoret and Martinvince worked on a few the same articles. Most of the articles created by two are non-notable and from which nominated for deletion related to the subject of this article. SO, who knows... Kolma8 (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just the fact that you would spend so much time into this and have been arguing so hard in support of deletion, it makes it obvious that you have COI and vendetta to get this page deleted. You may be a sockpupepet of the Troll and Nominator, same Pakastani UPE guy. If so, I know your real identity and will not disclose due to Wiki policy. As I said I am a paid editor, but have not made any edits to the page that have remained, so it doesn't matter. I have also not VOTED on this page due to COI, but I am allowed to post comments. And it is total BS that I have many common edits with the other editor. Please show me one? If he is paid I have no idea, because I am only speaking on my own behalf. BTW, it is possible to acquire images by contacting the subject and it is not against Wiki. I looked into it. This is not proof that they are paid.

Let's get back to the subject and if you have any personal attacks post on my TALK page. I ask you do not post anything here anymore. You have already been reported. Here is why the page should not be deleted:

1- NY Times – Major publication, in-depth coverage

2- Bloomberg Major publication, in-depth coverage

3- HARVARD Award from Harvard Business School, Passing mention, but shows notability and passes criteria for

WP:ANYBIO

4- Yahoo Finance Major publication, in depth coverage

Also there are several passing mentions including CNBC, WSJ, Forbes,

WP:BASIC

States : “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.”

In addition, Gordon has appeared as an analyst on CNBC several times and has written in Fortune and other publications.Martinvince (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinvince - I have not personally attacked you and already commented on the non-notability the sources above. So, I am not sure what is the reason to post them again. BTW this is the most bizarre deletion discussion with three of you thinking that someone is plotting against you, but yet failing to understand that Wikipedia has specific criteria for articles... But please always work hard for what you believe is right thing to do (or for what you were paid to do in your case). And actually to make it personal for you: If you know my identity come and stop by at my house (hint: it is in Germany; the same where is my IP address will bring) and we can drink a beer. Cheers to you. Kolma8 (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not appear to meet
  WP:GNG. Most of the keep !votes do not seem to address policy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

User:Onel5969: Have you checked the sources??? I am surprised you would say this. Why are these sources below not notable or have in depth coverage and why do you think there is not significant coverage?

1- NY Times – Major publication, in-depth coverage

2- Bloomberg Major publication, in-depth coverage

3- HARVARD Award from Harvard Business School, Passing mention, but shows notability and passes criteria for

WP:ANYBIO

4- Yahoo Finance Major publication, in depth coverage) Martinvince (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and reasoning above. His own companies, which have written about more frequently and in-depth than the person himself, and thereby are more notable, don't hold articles of their own.--Bettydaisies (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins: This vote is very suspect. It is an

WP:SPA. Account created only in Oct 2020 and this AFD vote is the only AFD vote this person has done ever. It would appear this is the same Troll that nominated this page for deletion and sockpuppet account. Please disqualify this vote. Also, I already posted links to several in depth articles not written by himself. Martinvince (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

What on earth are you talking about? My account has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this article. My edits have nothing in common with sockpuppets. You keep making baseless , rash, and uncivil accusations toward almost every single user here who has disagreed with your comments. That is unacceptable and a mighty fine horse to sit on given that you are an employee of the subject the article itself. This businessman is not notable, in my valid opinion as a user, under WP guidelines and precedent period. There is no way to disqualify my vote on any basis. Your attempts are futile, emotional, insulting, and deeply worrisome.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how you would randomly pick this page out of the blue to vote on??? You have no history of voting on anything else in AFD! Very suspect! Martinvince (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't owe you a single explanation - however, I am willing to state that I'm a frequent editor of the article Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, and saw your user on the contributions list. As is my prerogative, I checked your contributions and saw that they led here. There is nothing suspicious about my activity, and continuously attacking me isn't going to help this matter.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is full of sources that are either written by Gordon or are about something else that namechecks him in a trivial passing manner, such as the this WJS source about trucking services that briefly mentions a quote from him. That's just not enough to write a neutral and unbiased article. In order to forestall a few other arguments:

• I saw the debate listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs which means it is ready to be closed by an administrator. While I am such an administrator and have indeed closed hundreds if not thousands of AfD debates, I felt it was better to state an opinion to help cement a consensus.
• I don't particularly care about who wrote the article or why, all I care about is if a neutral and independent editor can clean the article up into a respectable state, and my view is that it is impossible.
• As you can see from my contributions, I have been around for about 15 years, with much of the activity over the past 8. You can see a list of my
  did you know nominations here in case you are worried I might be a single purpose account. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:41, 23 December 2020 (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.