Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Milowent/Donald G. Martin

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Milowent/Donald G. Martin
Delete Userfied after a contentious AfD (Articles for deletion/Don Martin (public affairs)) that led to a sockpuppet investigation. The notability issue has not been addressed since and in fact the only significant edit is the removal of the mention of a not-so-flattering incident on the somewhat dubious grounds that it's "old information". Pichpich (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability could not be addressed until now when the article was listed for deletion, so please do not mistake the fact that it has not been addressed as meaning there is no reason for notability. Please see my comments below. Thank you.  -Don Martin   Austex  •  Talk  17:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete all that's happened in 10 months of userfication is the addition of a nickname and the above removal of unflattering "old information" mentioned by Pichpich (oh and my removing it from article-space categories a moment ago). Even if much more had happened I'd be pressing for a deletion review to see if it was fit for the mainspace or else an MfD (unless there was active editing and/or discusison no more than a few days old - there has been no discussion at all in this case). WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOTWEBHOST apply here. Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep  Full Disclosure: WP:COI I am the subject of the article.  The reason nothing has changed in 10 months is that has been a subpage waiting for Milowent to see if it can be re-worked or edited for suitability and notability.  It has not been in circulation for anyone to examine or add to until just now when it is being listed for possible deletion.  It is not a WP:FAKEARTICLE as referenced above.  On my discussion page  [HERE]  is significant information relating specifically to notability but there was not a time or place to present this information prior to now.  Unfortunately a prior editor (who has since been banned for life)  attacked the article repeatedly about cited articles not being related to the subject, which was not true, because the citations required paid subscritions to various newspapers and business journals.  These are sgnificant articles that shed light on notability -- articles relating specifically to the subject and not just tangential -- and so they have since been posted on a separate web page for viewing and verification.   There is a link at my user page for that as well.   I do understand your concerns, and am not making light of them in any way, but would simply ask that a thorough investigation be undertaken re notability based on this additional information and not just on the current text which is incomplete (although well cited). Before you jump to the "delete" conclusion I would ask that you take a few moments and see the additional information.  This is the first time such information has been made available to reviewers to consider.     This article has notability and has numerous relevant citations and independent articles that a finding of notability requires.  I'd just ask that you give me this courtesy prior to assuming an automatic deletion.  Thank you for your time and efforts on Wikipedia. I know you have many other more interesting things to do, but this is important to me -- biased as my opinion may be.   Austex  •  Talk  17:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:INCUBATE and remove this from userspace if there is a claim that this could be in mainspace. Those who make the claim this could be made viable can fix it or it can be flushed. (Since XfD discussions often end up as vote counts, my opinion is still a Delete from userpace for determining consensus). SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Delete per WP:FAKEARTICLE and per the lack of work done on the article after nearly 11 months. I have read User talk:Austex/Archive 1 and have not found the "sgnificant [sic] articles that shed light on notability -- articles relating specifically to the subject and not just tangential" promised by . If wants to bring this userspace up to standards, I have no prejudice to undeletion upon his request. Cunard (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I asked to have this article userified because I saw the AfD had become infected with non-substantive discussions, and the editor who intended to userify it was leaving the project.  It seemed better to give it a chance for myself or others to see if it could be improved.  I've taken a few looks at it since in the hopes of improving it, and haven't felt it has a great shot at passing a new AfD based on merits of notability.   The fact that not much has been done with it in X months, or that there was a sockpuppet, or other hoopla surrounding the article, should be mostly irrelevant to the discussion of whether the subject is notable.--Milowent • talkblp-r  22:48, 2 May 2011 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.