Deletion of Michael J Coudrey

Comment: per . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: I created this article for a number of reasons and believe the subject does meet . #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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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  or . Lots of very many brief mentions count for something, but not very much on its own and isn't enough
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BIO)

Comment: Looking through the sources, nearly all of them are only quoting him, which does not meet the "significant coverage" requirement of . 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 https://www.sweetstartups.com/strategy/behind-the-growing-political-social-media-powerhouse-headed-by-marketing-ceo-michael-coudrey/ source 10, the only source that has significant coverage, allows you to https://sweetstartups.square.site/product/interview-permanent-links-/1?cs=true&cst=custom buy an interview and decide what's written which makes it non-independent and thus unusable in terms of notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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 . Being quoted and covered for random Tweeting controversies is not enough for . Also, I feel like we are encountering  that is preventing consensus
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SIGCOV||WP:STONEWALLING)

Comment: The article needs some clean ups and having reliable sources its evident enough that it has passed The sources in the article . It has reliable sources such as NY times, Washighton Posts, Fox News are reliable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)