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. The policy-based arguments below clearly show a consensus to delete, based off an analysis of the sourcing. Daniel (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J Coudrey[edit]

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 single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

[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) (Note: User:JalenPhotos2 has made few edits outside of the Michael J Coudrey article and this AFD and made their first edit at 12:44, 24 May 2021 (see here: [1] and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JalenPhotos2))[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]

@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]

Comment/ Detailed source analysis I was asked to reconsider my opinion based on the sources, so I have decided to put together a detailed table, analyzing the sources:

Source analysis
Source	Description	Main Subject?	Significant Coverage?	Policy
Rosenberg, Matthew; Corasaniti, Nick (2019-11-10). "Close Election in Kentucky Was Ripe for Twitter, and an Omen for 2020". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-06-17.	Article about a close election in Kentucky; Coudrey is mentioned briefly	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
Tenbarge, Kat. "A QAnon conspiracy theory about Oprah Winfrey went so viral that it provoked her to respond, showing the scope of coronavirus misinformation". Insider. Retrieved 2021-06-17.	Article about a QAnon conspiracy theory about Oprah Winfrey; Coudrey is quoted briefly	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
Re, Gregg (2020-05-26). "Twitter puts warning label on a Trump tweet on mail-in ballots, despite experts backing up Trump's concerns". Fox News. Retrieved 2021-06-17.	Article about Twitter and Trump; Coudrey is quoted briefly	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
EDT, Ewan Palmer On 8/28/20 at 12:56 PM (2020-08-28). "Why Kyle Rittenhouse, filmed fleeing armed attackers, was charged with murder". Newsweek. Retrieved 2021-06-17.`((cite web))`: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)	Article about prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse; Coudrey is quoted briefly	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
"How a chance Twitter thread launched Trump's favorite coronavirus drug". POLITICO. Retrieved 2021-06-17.	Article about Trump, hydroxychloroquine, and the Covid pandemic; Coudrey is quoted briefly	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
News, US. "Dr. Laura Coudrey MD". US News. Retrieved June 17, 2021. `((cite news))`: `\|last=` has generic name (help)	Profile of Coudrey's mother; paid for section and therefore not independent; no mention of subject	No	No	WP:SOURCE/ WP:SIGCOV
"Entrepreneur Michael Coudrey Discusses Business-Minded Childhood, Present Activities". CC Discovery. 2019-12-15. Retrieved 2021-06-18.	Interview of Courdrey by Canyon Country Discovery Center; lacks independence and is too closely connected to the subject to count towards RS	Yes	No	WP:SOURCE/ WP:SIGCOV
"Presenting the Class of 2011". Kings Park, NY Patch. 2011-06-23. Retrieved 2019-12-12.	List of Kings Park High School graduates; verifies he graduated but is just one name among many	No	No	WP:SIGCOV
"Virus consipracy-theory video shows challenges for big tech". AP NEWS. Retrieved 2021-06-17.	Article on the 26-minute documentary-style video dubbed “Plandemic,”; Coudrey is briefly quoted	No	No	WP:SIGCOV
Dwilson, Stephanie Dube (2019-08-10). "Jeffrey Epstein Camera Malfunction: Proof to Rumor Emerges Weeks Later". Heavy.com. Retrieved 2021-06-17.	Article on Jeffrey Epstein Camera Malfunction; Coudrey is briefly quoted; tabloid quality source	No	No	WP:NOTTABLOID/ WP:SIGCOV
Hines, Jan. "Behind the Growing Political Social Media Powerhouse Headed by Marketing CEO Michael Coudrey". Retrieved 2019-12-12.	Interview of Michael Coudrey in Sweet Startups; source often interviews people for pay; lacks independence and is too closely connected to the subject to count towards RS	Yes	No	WP:SIGCOV/ WP:SOURCE
"Trump Pushes Malaria Drug for Virus But Evidence Is Lacking". www.bloomberg.com. Retrieved 2021-06-17.`((cite web))`: CS1 maint: url-status (link)	Article about Trump, hydroxychloroquine, and the Covid pandemic; Coudrey is quoted briefly	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
"Woman Allegedly Attacked In Austin For Wearing MAGA Cap". Austin, TX Patch. 2019-03-13. Retrieved 2019-12-12.	Article about the alleged attack on Haley Maddox; Coudrey is quoted briefly	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
Giller, Marc (2019-11-14). "Is impeachment just a cover for Obama era corruption?". Conservative Christian News. Retrieved 2019-12-12.	Article on Adam Schiff’s impeachment “inquiry”; Coudrey is quoted briefly; source itself is questionable in quality	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/WP:SOURCE
Brigham, Bob. "'The backpedal begins': Trump backs off vaping crackdown — and he 'profited from the vape industry'". www.rawstory.com. Retrieved 2019-12-12.	Article on Trump and vaping policy/agenda; Coudrey is quoted briefly	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS
"Analysis \| One America News's Ukraine-Rudy Giuliani exposé is a stunning piece of propaganda". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2021-06-17.	Main subject is the America News Network and Rudy Guiliani's reporting on Joe Biden; Coudrey is mentioned briefly in one sentence	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
"Coronavirus conspiracy-theory video 'Plandemic' shows challenges for big tech". timesfreepress.com. Retrieved 2021-06-17.`((cite web))`: CS1 maint: url-status (link)	Article on the "Plandemic" film; Coudrey briefly quoted	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
"Marketing CEO Michael Coudrey Threatens Author Over Defamation". Beverly Hills, CA Patch. 2019-07-03. Retrieved 2021-06-18.	Local News source covering a twitter fight in what's essentially tabloid type press; this is the local hometown paper of where Coudrey grew up and its independence is questionable	Yes	No	WP:NOTTABLOID/ WP:SIGCOV/WP:SOURCE
WesselJun. 22, Lindzi; 2020; Pm, 5:30 (2020-06-22). "'It's a nightmare.' How Brazilian scientists became ensnared in chloroquine politics". Science \| AAAS. Retrieved 2021-06-18. `((cite web))`: `\|last2=` has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)	Article is about the use of chloroquine to treat Covid; Coudrey briefly quoted	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
Staff, Reuters (2020-11-04). "Fact check: Wisconsin did not have more votes than people registered". Reuters. Retrieved 2021-06-18. `((cite news))`: `\|first=` has generic name (help)	Article is about rumors surrounding the Wisconsin election. Article corrects wrong information spread by Coudrey and others	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
Re, Gregg (2020-05-26). "Twitter puts warning label on a Trump tweet on mail-in ballots, despite experts backing up Trump's concerns". Fox News. Retrieved 2021-06-17.	Article is about Twitter and Trump and mail-in ballots; Coudrey is briefly quoted	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
Fichera, Angelo (2019-08-12). "Unproven Claim of 'Camera Malfunction' Before Epstein's Death". FactCheck.org. Retrieved 2021-06-18.	Essentially a fact check of Coudrey's and others false claims on Twitter about camera malfunctions before Epstein's death; the rumor is the main subject not Coudrey himself	No	No	WP:NOTNEWS/ WP:SIGCOV
"Michael Coudrey". IMDb. Retrieved 2021-06-17.	IMDB/ unreliable source	Yes	No	WP:IMDB

As you can see, not a single source meets the criteria for WP:SIGCOV, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:JOURNALIST. Coudrey is essentially a political commentator on social media, and we would treat him much the same way we treat journalists. In these cases mere quotes are part of the routine job of a journalist /political commentator. We only consider journalists and political commentators notable when they themselves become the main subject of multiple sources in independent references. That hasn't happened here. This is a solid delete.4meter4 (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @4meter4 Very much appreciate your analysis and opinions in regards to interpretation of policy. Although, I would strongly disagree with your assertions based on a number of factors. For one, 'Coudrey is not a journalist or commentator'. He is the CEO of YukoSocial, a "social media engine for politicians" (According to The New York Times, Politico, Fox News). Two, based on what I mentioned above, the subject does not need to always be the main topic of the source material, so long as its more than a trivial mention. When the subjects work is the reason the article is written or he is being quoted by the journalist to be included in the piece, that is more than a "trivial" mention. Being that there are a significant amount of quoted materials from large news organizations based on the subjects profession in business, this 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. Thirdly, I think your analysis does not accurately factor in Presumed criteria as per WP:SIGCOV. I do appreciate the time you took to analyze and create the table, but I stress to others that it is still an opinion and individual interpretation of policy. Curious to hear others thoughts. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JalenPhotos2, and yet you are arguing for his notability based on his quotes which are all political commentary and have nothing to do with his role as a CEO of YukoSocial. You can't have it both way. Further, several of the sources in the article call him a "twitter commentator" when quoting him. Also, I fail to see how WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies in this case. That's a policy for how we treat statistics, large collections of data, etc. However, to quote that policy "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Ultimately, that applies here. These isolated quotes lack significant analysis, and by stringing them together in an article without any additional sources where the main subject is the primary subject, we are essentially building an article the is an WP:Original synthesis. That's why this article is a clear delete. 4meter4 (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources in the article are reliable. I agree the quotes in significant outlets like The NY Times merit the subject have its own article. Article needs slight clean-up, but it does pass WP:GNG. Pctweaks (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC) (Note: User:Pctweaks has made few edits outside of this AFD discussion; see here)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. Almost all the sources are deprecated and partisan: Fox News, Newsweek (once an iconic weekly, now owned by a sect), local affiliates of media, the blog Heavy.com, Imdb and the like. If you cut all that out, there would be very little left of content with a couple of citations from the Washington Post. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – 4meter4 has set out very clearly that Coudrey does not meet the notability standards. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is quite the discussion and I somehow got roped into reading it. After reviewing this all though, I am of the opinion that he fails to meet notability guidelines. I generally agree with other people's reasonings on why this is to be deleted. It seems like he's trying to be notable and it's having some effect, but it does not cross the threshold of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Lots of very many brief mentions count for something, but not very much on its own and isn't enough. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 21:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs some clean ups and having reliable sources its evident enough that it has passed The sources in the article WP:GNG. It has reliable sources such as NY times, Washighton Posts, Fox News are reliable. ShaddyAmbani (Note: User:ShaddyAmbani has made few edits outside of this AFD discussion; see here)
Keep: Per JalenPhotos2. Subject is notable, sources pass sig cov and WP:GNG. Appears the nominator has a personal bias against the article creator. Should not have been nominated for deletion. Physcho711 (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC) (Note: User:Physcho711 has made few edits outside of this AFD discussion; see here)[reply]
Note to closing admin. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JalenPhotos2.4meter4 (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Hi 4meter4, Not sure what is up with both of those entries, but this deletion thread has been a long and fruitful discussion with many members of the community contributing on both sides. I have zero affiliation with those two recent accounts. Should they be related, I'd suggest an admin remove their entries so that we may carry the conversation forward here. I've been on wiki for quite some time and have made a significant amount of edits for the good of the community. Your decision to bring me into the case is baseless. Looking forward to a CheckUser. Kindly, JalenPhotos2 (talk)

JalenPhotos2, I think it best that we not derail this AFD by commenting on the investigation here. You can make comments at the discussion page linked above, which I see you have already done.4meter4 (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough reliable sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to have had impact and plenty of references...not sure why the action to delete but I am no expert.CaliBuds (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC) (Note: User:CaliBuds has made few edits outside of this AFD discussion; see here)[reply]
Delete Insufficient WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:BIO criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see that Coudrey has had impact on this field and seems to be respected. Just my 2 cents.SugarHiller (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)— SugarHiller (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete:Per 4meter4's analysis. Seems like some random rich guy who has some internet clout within right leaning circles, but I don't think there is enough coverage to substantiate WP:GNG. Being quoted and covered for random Tweeting controversies is not enough for WP:SIGCOV. Also, I feel like we are encountering WP:STONEWALLING that is preventing consensus. — BriefEdits (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like the author had good reason to create the article and was sincere. The subject has more citations that the more notable people I try to write about! TexasToasters (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)— TexasToasters (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment — The influence of socks and spas in this AFD is indicative of the non notability status of the subject of the article. Celestina007 (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment —@Celestina007, I created this article and there has been fruitful discussion from both sides for the last 4 weeks without issue. This recent attention and potential socks (not yet confirmed) has now negatively manipulated this conversation. JalenPhotos2 (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JalenPhotos2 and Celestina007 please refrain from commenting on socks or spas on this page. You may do so at the investigation page. Also, JalenPhotos2 please refrain from making value judgements;; as the investigative process and notifications at this AFD are policy based reasonable reactions that are necessary no matter the final outcome. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2021 (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.