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

• Keep GregJackP (talk)
• Keep GiftigerWunsch [TALK]
• Keep Minor4th (talk)
• Keep DGG ( talk )
• Deletion questioned. C.Fred (talk)

• Keep (subject of article) Dmartinaus (talk)

• Delete (as nom) Orange Mike | Talk
• Delete Nineteen Nightmares (talk)
• Delete Daniel Case (talk)

Retaining arguments from editors in good standing. Removing those from subject and socks

Don Martin (public affairs) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local PR figure; good reason to suspect this of being autobiographical (or created at his behest and with his involvement) Orange Mike | 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. GiftigerWunsch [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

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)

• 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: [1] [2] [3][4] etc. -- Minor4th (talk) 21:27, 5 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)

• 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. ...

Inappropriate section copied from a user talk page removed. This discussion is for comments directly relevant to the AfD process only. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:28, 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

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

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)