- 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 10:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist because of majority of votes here are from a sockpuppeter (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DelosHarriman).--WinHunter (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This page is filled with claims about Rod Martin that are not substantiated. References to a biography that a politician provides for himself do not count as substantiation.
- Keep The anonymous challenger's hot-tempered vitriol, intemperate language, willingness to misrepresent and over-represent "evidence," and persistent attacks against Mr. Martin and persons and organizations related to Mr. Martin demonstrates for the Editors that Mr. Martin must, in fact, be QUITE relevant and of growing influence. Such bile is not wasted on the weak and irrelevant. Mars-Sekhmet 06:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you actually have any arguments to make that Martin is notable? Your personal attacks ("hot-tempered vitriol, intemperate language, willingness to misrepresent, persistent attacks, bile," etc.) do not show that Martin is notable. Please assume good faith. The fact that there is a difference of opinion about whether Martin is notable also fails to make him notable
- PayPal would be enough by itself. However, politically he's clearly relevant, in that he is the leader of a participating member of the Arlington Group[1], an tight little organization of pro-family orgs led by people like Jim Dobson and D. James Kennedy which gets regular private briefings at the White House and has gotten a lot of negative press for its inside leaks from Karl Rove.[2][3] It seems obvious to me that the public would want to know who these people are and (horrors!) even what they say about themselves. Unless you're trying to cover this sort of thing up.... Samdmd 00:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you actually have any arguments to make that Martin is notable? Your personal attacks ("hot-tempered vitriol, intemperate language, willingness to misrepresent, persistent attacks, bile," etc.) do not show that Martin is notable. Please assume good faith. The fact that there is a difference of opinion about whether Martin is notable also fails to make him notable
- There is no reliable source that demonstrates that Rod Martin played any management role at Paypal. He is not mentioned in any PayPal histories that I have seen. You need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia rules on reliable sources. Furthermore, being one of the fifty or so members of the Arlington Group is not inherently noteworthy. You are not seriously contending that all the groups listed on the Arlington Group's website are noteworthy, are you? (TeenMania? New Yorkers for Constitutional Rights?) Finally, he is not the leader of a consequential organization, he is the programmer for a self-promoting website. You seem to continue to avoid the point that no claim that the website makes about its own achievements is independently verifiable. The verbal games you are playing here illustrate why Wikipedia needs to be more than a group of articles that refer to each other; rather, they need to refer to something real and verifiable in the outside world.
- Delete self-promotional, clearly written by the person himself for vanity purposes. not notable, missing references. claims to have been "special counsel" to PayPal co-founder without citing proper sources. Wikiyoman 01:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Driveby slayings of people's biographies belong in mafia movies, not wikipedia. I expounded on the discussion page as to why we should keep this article. I believe I'll just leave this vote as another reason. UABVulcan 12:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep appears to of satisfied Wikipedia:Notability (people) and I see no proof of being a vanity article, other than this user's accusation. There are some bits that are unsourced, but that is satisfied with a {{fact}} tag not a deletion. --Wildnox 02:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has obviously satisfied Wikipedia:Notability (people) and the article has been under repeated attacks by vandals for days. The "special counsel" matter was cited to the publisher of his book (which is itself noteworthy), the publisher's website is clearly a valid source, and the president of the publishing company itself was a central figure at PayPal at the time Martin worked there. There is no reason for this discussion except the initiator's dislike of Martin. Samdmd 03:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This assumes things that are not true. The "special counsel" matter, contrary to what you say, is asserted nowhere except on Rod Martin's website! Being the second editor of a book is not inherently notable. Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks.
- Keep This complaint is stupid. Jawed3 03:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I wrote the original article. I didn't write it for anybody's vanity. Anyone who can't look at who he's involved with and why they're important isn't paying attention.[4][5][6] Also, one of the complaints on the talk page is that he isn't mentioned in some books about PayPal, but I'm looking at the 300-odd page history of PayPal by Eric Jackson right now, and neither are any of the three founders of YouTube, all of whom were important at PayPal (and are obviously very important now). So what's their point? Some kind of jealousy thing? It's crazy. DelosHarriman 03:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Many of the claims about Martin are not verifiable, period (CNP membership is secret) and others are unimpressive (Martin having his own website is not notable as such.) The reference to the NFRA might be notable if I had ever seen that the NFRA actually has any influence on politics, in the same way (say) that the Republican Party does. The claim that Martin was a senior executive at Paypal is not substantiable except by Martin's own website. The Martin entry is sheer puffery, a vanity entry set up by Martin or one of his buddies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.59.130 (talk • contribs)
- Obviously this anon editor has never been to California, where the NFRA state affiliate is the largest Republican group in the state.[7] And while former employees are not noted on the PayPal website, Martin's job title there is listed on the World Ahead Publishing site[8]. As to CNP membership, it sure has a lot of information out about it for a secret group,[9] and anyway, Wikipedia's rules require good faith acceptance of autobiographical information unless there's a good reason not to accept it. Not liking someone is not a reason. DelosHarriman 17:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Martin's alleged job title is NOT listed on the World Ahead Publishing site that is footnoted. As usual, DelosHarriman is simply making things up and hoping he will not be caught. The membership of CNP is secret; its existence as such is not. As usual, DelosHarriman is confusing two things that are entirely different. Finally, what is your citation for the idea that we are required to accept politicians' claims about themselves and not apply any scrutiny to them? Please provide the wikipedia rule. This has nothing to do with "not liking" Rod Martin, and I do not respect your attempt to divert attention away from the rule that content must be verifiable.
- Keep for Martin. He has a very long list of achievements. He, being a fairly hi-profile individual, will be under considerable scrutiny, which would tend to valildate his achievements. Ohconfucius 09:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.