Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael J Coudrey (2nd nomination)

Michael J Coudrey

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

Michael J Coudrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Recreation of an article that was previously deleted for failing

Comment. I am copy pasting my detailed source analysis from the first AFD, as many of the sources are identical. I will add any new sources from this current version of the Coudrey article to this list in the next couple hours.4meter4 (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note . The source analysis below from the first AFD has some sources not included this version of the article. Many of the sources in this analysis are still in use. Editors should look at the sources for themselves and draw their own conclusions after reading the sources and the opinions expressed here.4meter4 (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment :You have included a number of sources in the table that are not even mentioned in the article. By you not even looking at the article and realizing these sources aren't included, but still including them in your "source analysis", it coerces the opinions of the community under fraudulent pretenses. Further, if you did not review the article enough to realize your including analysis for sources not even mentioned in the Wikipedia article, how could you submit my article for deletion with any merit? If your actions truly are in good-faith, please also review new sources in your analysis and remove sources not included in the article. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @JalenPhotos2 I clearly stated that this was a copy paste from the first AFD and was completely transparent about that in my original post. Many of the sources are identical, and it's an important record of what transpired previously. As such it is pertinent to those evaluating this article. I am happy to go through and weed out the few that were not re-used. I stated earlier that I would be updating this and I still plan to. Lastly, it's the responsibility of each editor to review the article in its current state. Articles are often changed in the course of an AFD, so working on prior comments in never a good modus operandi. Everyone should take the time to form their own opinions. That's the responsible approach. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, you intentionally manipulated the community based on fraudulent and manufactured pretenses, then included sources in the above table that were NOT included in the article in order to intentionally manipulate the community. 3 Delete nominations are based on your fraudulent analysis. You also nominated my account for sockpuppetry, to which was a despicable attempt to "get your way" in a previous dispute. You further nominated my article for deletion. This kind of behavior is unacceptable here and I will be appealing to reverse it. Further, I ask you to stop harassing me. Wikipedia is an inclusive community of many editors. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per 4meter4's source analysis. Mooonswimmer 23:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the source analysis, most mentions are trivial and non-notable for sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Internet, United States of America, and California. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per source analysis, and Salt. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am the original author of the article. This article was originally deleted due to lack of
  WP:SIGCOV
  , whereas the subject is not the main topic but is included as much more than a trivial mention. Due to what appears to be a bad-faith effort for deletion, I encourage everyone to preview the article and conduct their own source analysis rather than use someone else's. The article may need some cleanup, which is debatable, however it should not be excluded from Wikipedia based on all applicable guidelines being met.

• @
  WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. Likewise, multiple editors were making the same or agreeing with the policy based made comments made by myself and user Celestina007 in the last discussion. Misconstruing the last AFD as a conflict between yourself and a single other editor isn't reality, and claiming "community support" from many SPA accounts is doing nothing to lend you credibility. Lastly, copy pasting a relevant document into this AFD that is pertinent is not prejudicial but best practice. Having a record of a relevant argument made in a prior AFD is helpful and useful. Given that I identified that there were differences between the sources in this current article and that analysis, and stated outright that it would need to be updated, I don't see how you could claim anything like fraud or prejudice. Editors voting here should be looking at the article in its current state and the sources for themselves. It's their responsibility. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment To clarify above WP:GNG notation. 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. Some of these news sources rely on the subjects 'expertise' in the fields of biotechnology or business, in which he is called upon to provide. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @

WP:BLPGOSSIP. 4meter4 (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment You say this, yet ALL 3 nominations for deletion are based on your fraudulent analysis, which included sources that were not even mentioned in the article. Then to "escape blame", you say that it's "good practice" to do your own source analysis, but yet all 3 deletion votes are based on fraudulent and manufactured pretenses (IE. your fabricated "analysis"). These actions DO affect the community. These actions DO change opinion. If you are truly acting in 'good-faith', then you should remove the sources that were not included in the article in order to accurately represent the article. Further, you should make this very clear in the opening statements that you are including sources and article links that are not even in the Wikipedia article itself. Your actions have tarnished this deletion page under fraudulent pretenses, and I hope an admin can clearly notice and see this when making a determination for deletion. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

jalenPhotos2, providing a copy paste of a prior documented source analysis on an almost identical article hardly rises to a fraudulent analysis. Given the significant number of overlapping sources, its useful. Editors can easily view the current article, and see which sources are still being used and which arem't. I've already stated that I am happy to go back and trim this list to reflect the current article, but I am busy off wiki, and it may be later today before I am able to do that. In the meantime, please be patient and refrain from being uncivil, and resorting to personal attacks. I will be placing a note in at

WP:ANI

to keep an eye on this discussion.

I suggest you keep your comments targeted towards presenting what particular sources you feel make this subject meet

WP:GNG, because that is really the only thing I and any other editor commenting here cares about. I will further add that every single time you make your argument about me instead of actually addressing the salient points I made about the sources that are in the article, it only weakens your argument. You still have not presented evidence of significant coverage where the source is "directly about the subject and in detail" (i.e. not a source with just a quote by Coudrey on another topic but a source about Coudret directly, and not a source about one of his companies or organizations but about Coudret directly), independent (ie not a press release and not a publication with ties to Coudrey or one of his companies), and from a reliable reference of quality (i.e. not a tabloid or hyperlocal news article). Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment The source analysis by JalenPhotos2 omits part of the description of Coudrey in ThePrint, which actually describes him as a little-known investor, entrepreneur and former biopharmaceutical analyst named Michael Coudrey (nor is it SIGCOV). Schazjmd (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I made an edit simply because the article appeared on a CS1 maintenance page because of incorrectly formatted citations. I am not expressing an opinion about the merits of the article. Ira Leviton (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article sourcing and what is available in a BEFORE do not indicate that this person meets WP criteria for notability. The sourcing is weak, basically name-checks or trivial coverage; mentions that do not constitute SIGCOV. GNG Fail. Netherzone (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per a lack of support for
  secondary support. I have not been able to find much more in my own search, e.g. an MIT Technology Review mention of "right-wing campaigner Michael Coudrey" posting a rumor on Twitter, and what has been presented in this discussion does not appear sufficient to support notability at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Doing my own simple run through current sourcing. I did remove a deprecated source that wasn't needed earlier today. I will remove/combine some more that I found were duplicate after I post this. Already started analysis so kept based on revision I was looking at. Looking through current sources based on this Revision:

• Delete - Based on my above run though of current sources, and basic searches, I'm not seeing GNG passed based with mostly trivial sources. Tweets quoted/mentioned often seems to be common theme, and while most major publication mention his popularity amongst Trump and his supporters, article doesn't even touch on that. WikiVirusC^(talk) 23:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• G4 and salt. Any fresh creation should henceforth go via AFC.—S Marshall T/C 23:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lack of significant coverage to support
  WP:GNG. I found several cases of the article creator misrepresenting sources and making claims not supported by the sources; I think I've cleared them all out, but it makes me suspicious that the article has more misrepresentations that I overlooked. Schazjmd (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete This appears to be "reference bombing", taking a lot of little mentions and trying to make it look like significant coverage. Zaathras (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Too many of the references just refer to the subject in passing. Would also be happy for article sent to draft and agree that requiring a RfC in future would be a good idea. Gusfriend (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2022 (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.