Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Coles (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 keep. ✗ plicit  12:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Michael Coles (businessman)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable businessman fails WP:GNG not reliable in-depth coverage. PR paid sources. Sanketio31 (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sanketio31 (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep there are many in-depth sources. For example this long profile in SFGATE. Second: a profile in the New York Times titled "Meet the Newt Killer". The Atlanta-journal Constitution profiled his book here. Those three alone are enough for GNG. In addition here is an NPR interview. The Chicago Tribune wrote about his work at Caribou. And so on. This is a bit of a bogus nomination, as there do not appear to be any "PR paid sources".--- Possibly (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * None of these sources talks indepth about him just trival mentions for his company. The sources which talks indepth about him are not WP:RS. Also, after checking a bit the creator seems to have a strong COI with the subject for uploading images as his own work. Fails WP:GNG Sanketio31 (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * --- Possibly (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , you didn't need to trim that. Saying that someone's deletion rationale is BS is not a personal attack, nor is pointing out that they have 130 edits total on Wikipedia, seeing as they are suddenly incorrectly nominating articles at AFD.--- Possibly (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Possibly We seem to be quite often not of the same opinion today. We do not call others opinion Bullshit and we do not valuate other Editors just about their Numbers of Edits. Do not repeat this again. I was also thinking about nominating this article for AfD, most of your sources are only by-pass mentions but there are 2-3 sources (SFGate and CNN) which indeed "rescued" this subject. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly fine to call someone's opinion bullshit, as far as I know. Our own article says that "It is mostly a slang term and a profanity which means "nonsense", especially as a rebuke in response to communication or actions viewed as deceptive, misleading, disingenuous, unfair or false.", which makes it an appropriate word choice here. If you search talk pages, you will find it is frequently used. Regarding notability, I continue to be perplexed as to why you want this deleted, seeing as there are so many good, in-depth sources. Anyway, let's not waste time disputing this minor item; let's sit back and let others give their independent opinion as to why SIGCOV in Time, the Christian Science Monitor, The New York Times and so on does not cut it, notability-wise.--- Possibly (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Time Magazine, 1996: "When Democrat Michael Coles announced for Congress against Newt Gingrich, the audience was filled with friends, supporters and a hostile, blue-furred Cookie Monster. The costume, worn by a Gingrich backer, was a dig at Coles' background. He is the self-made multimillionaire founder of the 400-store Great American Cookie Co...


 * Coles, in fact, has a profile that could have been lifted directly from the entrepreneurial lore of GOPAC, the Gingrich-inspired fund-raising operation. Coles and a partner began business in 1977 with $8,000 in start-up cash, a location at the Atlanta area's Perimeter Mall and so little cookie-baking smarts that his first batch burned and the fire department showed up. Two decades later, his company operates in 38 states and has annual sales of about $100 million. He has pushed hard since he was eight, when a fire at his father's rag-recycling business forced the family into bankruptcy. Coles did yard work in the neighborhood to bring in money, eventually hiring others in his enterprise. He held two jobs in high school and never attended college. At 31, he founded a clothing company and then turned to cookies.


 * Coles has also triumphed over physical adversity. After a near fatal motorcycle accident in 1977, doctors told him he would never walk again unaided. But Coles struggled back and is today a champion bicyclist; he once set a Southern transcontinental record for his 11-day trek from Savannah, Georgia, to San Diego. Says Coles campaign manager Kate Head: :::"This is a guy who believes in the American Dream.".--- Possibly (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's add this Christian Science Monitor article to the list.--- Possibly (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: I don't understand the nomination either. Also significant coverage in the Washington Post. 15 (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Cleary meets WP:GNG by having significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. ColinBear (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - This article, like some others, raises the question of how to deal with an autobiography of a person who is determined by a Before AFD search to pass biographical notability, because this article either is an autobiography, or is the result of paid editing. The nominator, User:Sanketio31, is absolutely right, as is User:CommanderWaterford.  The image in the draft was from the subject's web site; it says so in Commons.  The image either was included by the subject or the subject's flack with permission, or the image was ripped off from the subject's web site.  The former is more plausible.  The original draft of this article was a puff piece.  The questions are, first, whether this article has been improved and neutralized enough to be kept, and, second, whether the originator should be sanctioned.  However, this is a content forum and will not answer the second question.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Having done lots of work to combat COI on Wikipedia, I'm sympathetic to what you are saying. However, COI does not matter in notability discussions, which I think you are also acknowledging. Regarding the image, it is an extremely common occurrence that unconnected editors grab images from the web for articles, then upload them to Commmons and mark them "own work". If there was anything to be done about potential COI here, I think we would have done it already. (And our COI policy is toothless; even if the article creator admits to COI it changes very little. They get a slap on the wrist and have to put a tag on their user page. Then they can keep editing.) --- Possibly (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The article creator has stated here that they read Coles' book and also saw him speak at their high school. So, asuming good faith, this is apparently not a COI product at all.--- Possibly (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Assume Good Faith is not a suicide pact. That claim that this is not a COI product is incredible, meaning not worthy of belief by a rational H. sapiens.  If the article creator did not have a conflict of interest, then they had even less excuse for writing the puff piece that has now been trimmed down to something reasonable.  I agree that our COI policy is weak and problematic, and this appears to be a case where COI editors have driven a cookie truck through a fence.  However, I will review the article as it currently stands and its sources before !voting in this AFD.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To me their story it seems entirely plausible. The first version of the article looks just like a book report a high schooler might write. Anyway, the whole COI thing is a digression in terms of the AfD.--- Possibly (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - This has been a Heymann improvement from the paid piece which I declined. As noted by other editors, the article clearly satisfies biographical notability.  In the short run, keeping the article improves the encyclopedia.  In the longer run, conflict of interest editors will see that the system has been gamed, and that autobiographies and paid biographies can be submitted, and are likely to be reworked to neutral or nearly neutral form by reviewers.  So it is definitely in their interest to submit autobiographies and paid pieces, because they are likely to be accepted, and they might get through in a form that has not been fully neutralized.  The system has been gamed.  Reviewers need to be even more vigilant than in the past to look for promotional articles and rework them.  Keeping is wrong, because it encourages promotional edits, but deleting would be more wrong.  There is no right answer.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to bludgeon this AfD with so many comments, but you're mischaracterizing what happened here; keeping this article has nothing to do with enabling COI editors. The article was submitted and then rejected by two reviewers. A good faith editor (me) happened upon it spent some time fixing it. Regarding COI it might appear to be UPE, but the editor who started it has denied that. Decently sourced articles by UPE editors are not deletable unless they are made during a block, as far as I know. Nor do we delete or prevent the publication of articles that meet our criteria as a result of the improvements of good-faith editors like myself. As with many things in Wikipedia, the question is not so much how the article got written or how anyone feels about that process, but rather, the question is whether it ultimately improves the encyclopedia. And you have answered that it does, albeit weakly. --- Possibly (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Not enough reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:NPOV. SFGATE article is behind a paywall. NYTimes article is a reprint publication and other sources don't talk in-depth about him. It strongly looks like a paid piece by the creator as also highlighted by Robert McClenon. COI and UPE should never be rewarded. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The SFgate article is not behind a paywall where I am. In any case, paywalls have nothing to do with reliability. MarioGom (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment It looks like a basic Wikipedia Page for this businessman. The person appears to be extremely notable with well known sources and should be kept. Has helped secured $80 Million+ in profit.
 * https://beyond8figures.com/podcast_episode/80m-exit-michael-coles-great-american-cookie-company/
 * https://www.mprnews.org/story/2007/11/13/caribouceo Thedangeroz (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources already provided appear adequate to meet WP:GNG, issues with COI and tone can be handled through normal editing. -- Jayron 32 18:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as a result of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications, thus satisfying relevant guidelines for inclusion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable, sourcing is fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.