Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod D. Martin (2nd nomination)

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 DELETE. When Mr. Martin achieves the required level of notability, we will be able to find reputable, third-party sources from which to write the new article. Plus WP:LIVING concerns. -Doc 23:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This article was originally nominated for deletion here. Though because it was affected significantly by sockpuppeting of the article creator (checkuser), I relisted the nomination. WinHunter ^(talk) 12:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(original nom statement) 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 The article does need to be cleaned up and definitely needs better sources, but I see no reason to delete. --Wildnox 13:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the main discussion page for this article? If so, you may find that there are plenty of Wikipedia rules that this entry violates and therefore plenty of reasons to delete..— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.167.100.41 (talk • contribs)

Many of the accussed violations seem false, I see no proof of violation of WP:VAIN as is accused. Bad sourcing and violation of NPOV are a reason to cleanup an article not delete it. --Wildnox 20:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• strong Delete This entry breaks Wikipedia rules in so many ways that I do not have time to list them here. It is self-promotional. It is poorly sourced. It uses weasel words. It makes unverifiable claims. From my experience, it makes at least two claims that are simply false or at best extremely misleading, although I do not have the sources at hand to verify this. It is derived almost completely from his personal website. It is written by a person who has repeatedly used meatpuppets and sockpuppets to resist all changes to it. It is part of an entire network of self-referring articles about this fellow and his non-notable friends, and the network's defenders argue that the existence of the network on Wikipedia makes him notable. The existence of this article simply flouts all sorts of Wikipedia's rules and conventions. DoctorSqueak 13:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC) — DoctorSqueak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete This one, though, seems to be worthy of deletion (see eric. m. jackson discussion above).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.102.213 (talk • contribs)

• Strong Delete Rod Martin is a clever self-promoter, who accumulates memberships and associations without ever accomplishing anything substantial. This is reflected in his website, of which he was obviously the author, that follows his autohagiographical approach to life. This entry violates the good faith provisions of Wikipedia, and should be removed. ArkansasRed 04:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: ArkansasRed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

• Keep. Article establishes notability, many times over. Author, exec VP of a bona fide nat'l group, columnist on notable forum WND. Not written in promotional tone. Pan Dan 10:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Petros471 18:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please can some more experienced editors weigh in their opinions. Thanks. Petros471 18:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ArkansasRed and DoctorSqueak. Nonething much more to say other then it fails WP:BIO. Hello32020 18:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as co-editor of moderately-notable book. Needs cleanup and sourcing, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rewrite - The article definitely needs to be rewritten and better sources provided, but this guy is notable. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 20:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rewrite per Torinir. Ironically, a lot of the Delete votes actually assert the guy's notability and make a good case for keeping and rewriting the article. Danny Lilithborne 21:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I ran a multi-decade Factiva newspaper and magazine database search, and "Rod D. Martin" scored only 12 hits - of these, the most substantial were 2 hits were versions of an op-ed written by him on internal Republican Party politics in 2002, and a 2004 press release about the Bush hagiography he edited. Other mentions were all minor - major category was brief mentions of the book. The most prominent publication was a mention of the book in The Washington Times. A couple of hits - a hit in the Wichtia Eagle local newspaper listing of recent bankruptcies (literally just a list of names and asset values) in 2004, and a 3 line article reference about Arkansas higher education in USA Today in 1987 may or may not be about the Rod D. Martin under discussion. He doesn't seem to have much of a splash outside GOP astroturf blogs/fundraising network. I think he's at most a medium level GOP party fundraising operative with enthusiasm for the internet Bwithh 00:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. While the subject appears to be on the cusp of achieving the required level of notability, I am more concerned with the quality of sources for much of the information presented. Besides the Washington Post Online Live interview transcript and the FEC press release, all of the other sources are either completely self-published or at the least self-submitted autobiography. And while self-published sources may be used in some cases to flesh out information on already notable subjects, they cannot be used to establish notability. Other than the fact that he has co-edited one book and that his campaign committee for a failed U.S. House run was fined by the FEC, almost every other statement in this article should be removed as improperly verified per WP:V. When Mr. Martin achieves the required level of notability, we will be able to find reputable, third-party sources from which to write the new article. --Satori Son 13:50, 17 September 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.