Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Martin (public affairs)


 * 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.

Revised verdict to Delete based upon []. Most of the keeps, particularly at the end of the discussion, which helped sway the final outcome have been determiend to be either sock or meat puppets of the page founder. In his defense at the SPI investigation, Dmartinaus wrote, It is a stressful position to be in when it's YOUR business reputation on the line (and this Wikipeida site and the editing process pops up regularly on Gogle Alerts), and when YOU are the one being accused of truly astounding falsehoods. Well, the article would have probably been deleted without the puppetry to begin with and if he is worried about his public persona, then leaving an article on Wikipedia which is directly tied to his puppetry/misconduct here will only highlight the unethical behavior he has exhibited. Deleting the article won't remove it from the wikiclones and it won't hide the other stuff that has transpired, but oh well.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In light of the unusual circumstances surrounding this case, I'm sending it to DRV for review. I'm leaving it deleted, but will have others look at it and agree or disagree with my verdict.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The result was  Keep Marginal notability, but enough to be kept... plus, the trend seems to be in that direction. While the person who claims to be Don, and I have no reason to doubt him, does not want the article to be deleted, if he changed his mind I would support his desire (after proving his identity) but as he supports keeping it and the consensus supports that as well, I think the result is a clear keep.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Don Martin (public affairs)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable local PR figure; good reason to suspect this of being autobiographical (or created at his behest and with his involvement) Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  18:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly notable, this was addressed in detail at Talk:Don Martin (public affairs), numerous references, both already included in article and that are not yet cited. Concur that this article is either WP:AB or at the least WP:COI, however neither of these are valid reasons for deletion if the subject is notable.  For disclosure purposes, I have edited the Lawsuit section of the article and participated extensively in talk page discussions.  GregJackP (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per prior consensus: There has already been a discussion about the notability of this article, as well as a detailed discussion on the article later, involving several (at least 6) editors without any further mention of an issue of notability. There is a long list of reliable sources which firmly establish the article's notability, which is why the "notable" template was removed from the article several days ago.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  19:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - this article has also gone through the Request for Comment process and was listed at the AN/I board. The reviewing admin did not question the notability of the article. GregJackP (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Article reads like a resume for his company as much as the loads of droll biographical blather is nearly meaningless to the average reader. In other words, who cares about some PR firm or its egotistical owner? Notable or not, this type of article doesn't have any business being on Wikipedia. I also have to wonder with all the "keeps" that have popped up so far, do we have a sock, or perhaps some other individuals close to the article that are trying to weigh it in favor or keep? It smells like fish in here. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
 * Allegedly reading like a resume is a reason to edit the article, not to delete it. Please be aware that BLP applies to all pages on Wikipedia, not just articles, and describing the article subject as "its egotistical owner" is unacceptable. Please refrain from insulting named, living people or you will be blocked. Sarah 02:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The claim that the subject is an "author" is dubious at best. In reality, he published a book of old postcards. I'd hardly call that authorship, maybe not even much editorship. Once again, that fishy smell is in the air. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares


 * Undecided. I'm not sure I care one way or the other, however I can positively assure you that the two editors above have no relationship to, familiarity with or concerns for the subject of the article. The extensive and much heated debate ove the lawsuit section shows their lack of concern (no offense intended here)about the reputation or future of Martin.   There was some discussion of the need to "fill out" some of the prior sections to blance the lawsuit paragraph, so this morning I added a list of organizations taken from the subject website.   I will now revert those since that may be part of what triggered your concern.   But the decision on the notability is up to other editors, including those above as well as others, and not me.  Austin3301 (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * However, I do take great exception to your rude, unneccessary and snide comments about the author section.  Arcadia Press is an estblished independent press (not a vanity press) and the book is legititmate.  It is available on Amazon, Borders, Barnes&Noble on-line as well as in their stores, local museums, etc. It is a valued Austin history book and not "a book of old postcards."  Get your facts straight and stop being offensive and rude with your uneducated and biased personal opions.  Personal POV and most certainly personal attacks do not have a place here.    Austin3301 (talk)


 * I see that the organizations have already been removed which is fine. I do not agree with Nightmare's slash editing of the opening paragraph which is part of what constitutes notability, and therefore I have reverted it back.  What do others think?  Austin3301 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC).


 * Comment The "slash editing" you refer to was intended to improve the article as the opening sentence should lay out the subject in a quick and concise way, without padding. The items you have included in the opening paragraph are repeated ad nauseum in the article, so they are duplicitous and I included that in my reason for editing. A reversion does not make it look encyclopedic, it makes it look like you are trying too hard. My only intent on Wikipedia is to weed out non notables and help to improve bad articles on good subjects so they can be retained. I do not even know this man. But my feeling is that the article is a vanity piece and in no way beneficial to the general reader on Wiki. That is my opinion and I have stated it. There is nothing personal here, even if you took it that way. Why are you taking one editor's opinion as such a personal affront, if I might ask? Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Nineteen Nightmares


 * Comment - Nineteen Nightmares - I would caution you to be very careful before accusing an editor or editors of sockpuppetry. I noted that you have recently starting editing so I would, assuming good faith, believe that you have not taken to the time to read the Talk:Don Martin (public affairs).  If you had done so, you would have seen that the main proponent of the article (and the one that probably has a WP:COI) was on one side of an argument on the lawsuit section and both Giftiger & I were on the other side, along with several other editors.  I would strongly recommend that you read the talk page before making any other accusations of fishy aromas.  As to notability, please check the standards of WP:GNG - there are 28 references listed and several that had been removed in the content dispute reselution process.  There is plenty more that hasn't been added to the article to show notability, including a series of articles on Martin's representation during the discussion of a possible sale of Austin's city owned utility company and other controversies.  Regards, GregJackP (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As the subect of the article (Martin) I am offering an opinion here on the talk page only, where it is alllowed. I have no problem with deletion of the site.  What started out as someone entirely unrelated to me starting the original site in a positive manner has turned into a lie-awake-at-night nightmare for me.  I'm an Austin-area-only public affairs consultant who, like many such consultants, sometimes take on highly controversial subjects.    The prospect (referred to above by GregJackP) of having each and every one drug out through heated battles like was done with the lawsuit is terribly unfortunate, distressing and unnecessarily damaging without the ture story ever being told.  (Especially when the cite and "facts" used for such attacks is likely to be a local counter-culture weekly and not a mainstream newspaper)  Quite frankly I'm just not that notable.  I work city issues, not legislative issues, and I do a heck of a lot of good work in the community, and have many excellent references aong the leaders of the community references. The direction of this site, for reasons I do not understand, is now apparently aimed at permanently damaging my reputation, my livilihood, my friends and clients, and most of all my family.  And for no reason other than someone started a simple site deveoted to saying positive -- mostly resume-like -- things about me. Dmartinaus (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong, speedy keep --  Likely created at the behest of the subject matter, but the subject has been vetted, and balancing information has been added and discussed in a vigorous debate over the course of several days.   An admin has contributed to the article via proposed draft of lawsuit section. Several non-interested editors, including myself, have participated in editing the article and balancing its content for neutrality.  The subject is clearly notable when held against the Wiki criteria for notability.  Reliable coverage here:    etc. -- Minor4th (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * GregJack has kindly pointed out to me that I should not have commented on deletion of the page to which I am the subject. I apologize as I thought (obviously incorrectly) that I could add material to the talk page for editors to consider. One must admit that trying to keep up with all the rules here is a daunting task.  Thanks (I mean it) to Greg for letting me know.  But as you can see above it is a touchy subject for me and I appear to be in for a constant continuing barrage of attacks.    Dmartinaus (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Don, you are most welcome to comment on the deletion discussion. As the article subject, you're entitled to make a comment here. The Conflict of Interest guideline only advises that article subjects be careful about how they contribute to such discussion, it certainly doesn't prohibit a reasoned comment from the subject. You have been open about who you are and your comments to this page have been very reasonable and are most welcome. Sarah 02:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete on what grounds? While autobiographies are discouraged, it is still possible for the subject of an article or an affiliate to write a neutral article about the subject. Not all articles with a COI should be deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 04:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreeing with C.Fred. "Autobiographical" is a reason to edit the article, not to delete it and certainly not to speedy it. We do accept autobiographies here. We discourage it because most people have great difficulty writing about themselves in a policy compliant manner, but if someone does write a neutral, verifiable and policy-compliant article about themselves or a subject with which they have a COI, we will accept it. I'm also not so sure that this is actually an autobiography. Looking at the article history, it seems that the few edits made by the subject have been completely rewritten by other editors. Sarah 02:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The subject himself has apparently weighed in and is in favor of deletion for personal reasons. That's a fairly good reason for a speedy. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Nineteen Nightmares
 * Comment - A subject approving or requesting deletion of an article about himself is not reason for a speedy delete, and it is not even reason for deletion, period.  Please review WP:CSD, WP:BLP, WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, which states:


 * If you create an autobiography you must have no promotional intent and must be willing to accept it being neutralized if it is not neutral, or even deleted if it comes to that. If you do turn out to be notable, you must expect the article to stay—you cannot just get it deleted because you are not happy with it. Our neutral point of view policy is absoluteand non-negotiable, and all encyclopedic topics are fair game for Wikipedia.
 * If you create an autobiography you must have no promotional intent and must be willing to accept it being neutralized if it is not neutral, or even deleted if it comes to that. If you do turn out to be notable, you must expect the article to stay—you cannot just get it deleted because you are not happy with it. Our neutral point of view policy is absoluteand non-negotiable, and all encyclopedic topics are fair game for Wikipedia.

Minor4th (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not correct. We certainly can and do take into account the views of the article subject. We're not obliged to honor them but we do take them under advisement. This is especially the case for non-public figures who are of borderline notability (which would seem to be the case here). This is covered by the deletion policy, specifically: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete." Sarah 02:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional comment -- although I think the article should stay, mostly because I participated in an ongoing discussion that resulted in a consensus, everyone involved in editing should be extra cautious about the content and keep in mind that Don Martin's real life is affected by what is written.  Negative info should be presented with extreme sensitivity toward neutrality.   To Dmartinaus (talk), I imagine this process is very stressful, but a cold reading of the article about you does not paint you in a negative light or portray you as a bad guy, in the balance.  You're a big name in PR, and there is nothing in the article that is not available elsewhere on the internet for anyone to read.   It does not reflect poorly on your family, and I see nothing about the article that would damage your clients or your reputation.   It is clear you have controversial clients -- why else would they need a PR consultant?   Try not to lose sleep because it is not as negative as you perceive.   I don't think anyone is trying to harm you.  Peace.   Minor4th (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate section copied from a user talk page removed. This discussion is for comments directly relevant to the AfD process only.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  07:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Bowing Out. It sounds like the decision to keep the article is pretty much decided in that it takes an overriding majority to delete an article (or the decision of an administrator). But in fact an administrtor actually helped write portions of the piece.  Even if tagged for speedy delete, any one editor can prevent that.


 * In addition, I have to admit that I have perhaps been too close to the situtation and subject, and at times too emotional, to have been offering my own opinion so strongly. However, all edits and the article have been throughly vetted (boy is that an understatement!) and re-edited in many cases by others.   Certainly no one person got their way in these very difficult debates.  It was collaborative (and at times quite heated) procecss.  If there is need for any additional cleanup then by all means go ahead.


 * So with GregJackP retiring, I will take this as my opportunity to bow out as well.  I would suggest and politely ask that some other editor now remove both tags, and to archive and organize the lawsuit discussion (Sections 1, 6, 9 and 10 PLUS the separate subpage re the lawsuit language paraagraph - all into one lawsuit archive).  And meanwhile I will henceforth cease all editing.    Signing off.     Austin3301 (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment When I have some time, I will do just that. I noticed many, many references, but references are supposed to be DIRECTLY about the subject, not about his book, business or anything else that does not primarily focus on HIM as the subject of the article. Any URLs in the list that do not mention him explicitly will be removed. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares


 * Re comment above  PS -- by "clean up" I did not mean whacking off references.    I meant the Wikipedia process of "cleaning up" the article to ensure no indication of bias, personal point of view, or non-neutral tone. Austin3301 (talk)

Leave references as is - Policy dictates a well-referenced article to show notability. Since you are arguing notability issues it would be highly inappropriate for you to remove references. From Notability section "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Multiple sources from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." I recommend no removals without general agreement of the editors already involved. If you have suggestions, Nightmare, then show how the ref does not specifically involve the subject. References on the book, for example, (with the exception of the Amazon link), appear to be articles about the process of writing the book and interviews of him, not reviews of the book itself, therefore they appropriately support the subject of the article. For heaven's sake, Nightmare, how can anyone write about a person and not write about his company, or a book he has written? You have a very strange sense of what references are intended to do. All of these many references appear to me to be well sourced and to the point.4804BT (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC).

Comment - Policy also dictates that controversial edits be discussed on the talk page. As has been stated repeatedly, this article has had extensive discussions on most areas of the article, primarily due to the WP:COI, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NPOV issues. GregJackP (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2010


 * Move page? - shouldn't this page be moved to Don Martin, Austin Texas instead of Don Martin (public affairs). The latter appears more as an advertisement for his company which I assume was not intended since I see that another editor moved it here.   4804BT (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment that is another area of contention. It started out as public affairs, following a discussion based on the same concerns you mentioned (advert) it was moved to Austin, then the admin who initiated this afd moved it back, citing naming conventions (mos).  I have no opinion on that, and it's not all that important in an afd (as compared to notability) GregJackP (talk) 11:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Remove Afd?  There's been a lenghty discussion. Obviously there are several unrelated editors in favor of keeping the aticle. Can the Afd tag be removed now?  Agree?   4804BT (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion?

 * Wrap up???   Disclosure:  I am the subject of the article.  I have also made edits over time (although those edits were mostly reversed and the CIO issue has been thoroughly discussed).  My goal at this point is to get a relatively quick resolution of the issues.   1) Whether the page is deleted re Notability or not (I will stay out of this on-going discussion although I lean toward keeping it); and 2) terminating the tag re CIO.  It appears to mr that both isues have now been throughly vetted both here and on the article talk page. This discussion has now gone on a considerable length of time. If I may ask, can we please decide one way or another and let's remove the tags, or delete the article entirely.   It appears to me that editor Sarah above(no relation to me of any kind) perhaps has the best handle on these issues.  Thank you.  Dmartinaus (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It usually takes about seven days for the review process to complete and then a supervising editor will make the final determination one way or another. Since it was nommed on June 5 and it is only the 7th, there is still about 5 days before the final tally is made and anything concrete done. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares


 * Keep, but with reservations. As the subject of the article I have vacillated over this quite a  bit.  I guess I favor keep but I have reservations still about the added lawsuit section, as you can imagine.   I suppose I would like to see some other areas fleshed out for added balance. I'll leave the final decision to others to decide.  Dmartinaus (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep On balance, I think the varied aspects make him probably notable. The one that I think is clearest is  codeveloper of  Legi/Slate, important software about which we ought to have an article. There are some comments above that I do not agree with: first, articles about a person's work or publications are of course relevant to his notability--in almost all cases, it is peoples' work that  is what make them notable, not the details of their personal biography, though the sources do have to discuss him in the context of that work. My view of the book is that though it can certainly be mentioned, it is not sufficient for notability as an author. As for BLP considerations, I am not sure I consider him a private figure--as he says above--a PR consultant will necessarily be involved in controversial matters. But the section on the lawsuit must mention that he was removed from the case, which proceeded only against the company-- as written, it gives the exact opposite impression. I'm not sure of the exact wording to use, but I restored a wording used earlier.   DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep ---  DGG, I agree that the book itself does not confer notability.  But I looked it up (see external link to a book-related site) and it is definitely a legitimate book.  It is sold on Amazon for example.  It is not self-published or a vanity press book.  Apparently it helps fill in an important gap in Austin history and was well received by the reviewers.  I mean....how often does anyone write a book?  I agree, however, that it does not need any additional mention beyond what is already written in the book section currently. Also, the recent change to list clients in a tabular form is too obtrusive.  I am going to revert them back in in-line text or some other more appropriate listing. Jessi0421 (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * clarification - vanity press books are generally nominally available on Amazon and through distributors, just as self-issued garage band songs are often available on iTunes; neither is evidence of notability. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are that concerned please see Arcadia Press at [| Arcadia] who publishes a Postcard History series of cities around the United States, among other book series. I was paid an advance and a healthy percentage of sales (as opposed to a vanity press where the author pays to have it printed). The book is available on Amazon, Borders, Books-a-million, Hastings, Barnes&Noble and other on-line sites as well as in their physical stores -- a tremendous rarity for a vanity book. ISBN 9780738570679.  $21.99   It is very much a legitimate book and was well received in Austin as noted above by others.  You can order one from Arcadia at: [] and I'll sign it for you.  Dmartinaus (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, Here's a link to newspaper and independent book editor reviews on the Arcadia website: [| Press reviews]   Dmartinaus (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * PS - Even if we all agree -- which I don't -- that the book does not confer notability wouldn't it still be mentioned as it is a significant activity related to the article subject? And noted with citations?  (Don Martin)  Dmartinaus (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep . . . . 'nuff said.   4804BT (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, after getting to this from the Nineteen Nightmares unblock situation. It seems to me that Mr. Martin is regionally notable. The sources would be impeccable proof of notability if this were the Austin-area wiki. But it's not. Austin may be the Texas state capital, and home to the main campus of its state university, but it's still only the fourth-largest city in the state. Now that might not preclude notability if, say, Mr. Martin was active in state politics, even though he is not nor has ever been an elected official. But ... if he were, I'd expect the Dallas, Houston and San Antonio newspapers, or other news outlets, to have mentioned his name in some non-trivial way, and for those non-trivial mentions to be among the sources cited. As Mr. Martin notes above he has been active in local affairs but not state ones. Therefore I don't believe a state-level threshold of notability has been met. Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2010 (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.