18 June 2010

Don Martin (public affairs)

Don Martin (public affairs) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

As the closing admin, I wanted to get the input of others on this unusual case. When I first read the AfD, I felt that the claim to notability was marginal at best, but that there seemed to be a solid consensus forming in favor of keeping. This was particularly true in light of the rush of keeps near the end of the AfD. I was also pursuaded, in part, that somebody claiming to be the subject was involved with the AfD. That person at first was not sure about keeping the article, but eventually !voted in favor of keeping.

After the AfD concluded, somewhat of an edit war broke out on the page and as the closing admin, a few requests were brought in to see if I could help mitigate the situation---which I was planning on doing tonight. When I logged on this evening, I discovered that the subject and about half of the participants in the XfD were involved in a Sock/Meat puppetry issue.

Based upon the Marginal notability of the person involved, the abuse of system/self promotion, deception by the subject, etc I decided to go ahead and delete the article. Based upon this history, I wanted to have this reviewed by others. IMHO, this should either remain deleted or be sent back through AFD... but I wanted input from others and won't take an over rule personally. ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• wow, that is very odd, I can see why your brought it here. I'd say a relist is probably the right outcome, but deletion isn't at all unreasonable given the issues. So weak endorse with a suggestion that a relist might be the best way to go. Hobit (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn or Relist - With all due respect to Balloonman, I believe the AfD was closed incorrectly. Ty posted a copy of the AfD discussion with the socks redacted at User:Tyrenius/M - it clearly showed that 4 reliable editors wished to !keep, and that 3 reliable editors wished to !delete. The subject/puppetmaster also showed !keep, if that matters in this DRV. At best (understanding that this is not a !vote) there is no consensus, and certainly not consensus for deletion. At worst, it should be relisted. GregJackP (talk) 06:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GregJackP, would you please disclose your obvious connection to the subject. I seriously have my suspicions that you are actually the subject of this aricle, right back in here in some devious way strongly trying to keep and manipulate the data in the piece. Why are you fighting so stridently against the deletion of a pile of advertising crap from the site? It is not even an interesting article, for crike's sake! Your behavior again smacks of WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Your opinion is not the only valid opinion. Please refrain from making attacks at people who disagree with your point of view, especially since so far your most compelling argument has been "who cares about some egotistical PR manager ". GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, just to remind ya, AFD is not a !Vote, but the strenght of argument is weighed. As the primary claim to fame is his book, he fails WP:Author. When I revisited the discussion, I also had to weigh when some of those keeps weighed in. As they did so after a number of socks stepped in, you have to wonder what effect the Socks had on their !votes.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely that it is not a !vote. I also agree that he fails WP:AUTHOR, but felt that he met WP:GNG - with the coverage from the lawsuit (most of those refs were removed in the consensus on the content, including a national trade publication) and several other refs over the years, I thought he met that standard. Part of the issue was the unmitigated garbage introduced by the socks, which is why I thought Ty's post (above) would help. GregJackP (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually AFD is a !vote. The ! in front is the negation operator. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse with barnstar. What an excellent decision.—S Marshall T/C 06:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:Restore and relist. Tough circumstances - closing admin has said he/she won't take it personally and this !vote of mine certainly shouldn't be taken as criticism. Once we ignore the keep socks, there were still enough reasonable arguments on the keep side to stand in the way of deletion. And there wasn't a hell of a lot on the delete side; at least not enough in my view to constitute consensus to delete. Restore the page, lock it and the AfD down if need be, and relist.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC) I'm changing my mind now that I've seen Balloonman's comment at 14:50, 18 June 2010, suggesting it would have been closed as delete until the late socking was taken into account. This makes me confident that the deletion wasn't a direct response to the socking, but rather a restoration of the close that would have been made but for the socking. And that close would have been within discretion.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to that point, personally, I do not believe that notable subjects should have too much say in wether or not they have an article. If they are notable enough to have one, they are notable enough to have one whether or not they want it. (Although they can ask and their opinions should be taken into consideration on the subject.) In my original statement, I indicated that if Don changed his mind and wanted to have the article deleted, I would support that request. I made that statement because I found the case to be that borderline that the socks did sway my stance. I also took the comment he made at the SPI as an indication that the best course of action would be to delete it. (Which is why when I was asked to undelete, I said no, but would open a DRV on the subject.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and relist: as Balloonman said, it's worth wondering what effect all those socks had on the process. I think this should be relisted now that the sock army have been dealt with, as I don't feel there was any clear consensus for delete with the removal of the sock comments from the AfD. Note also that notability had been discussed on the talk page for the article towards the beginning of its discussion history, and consensus was reached that it was notable (one participant was Austin3301, one of the socks, but other unrelated editors such as myself and GregJackP also contributed to this discussion). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giftiger, please disclose your connection to the subject. The way you, Minor4th and GregJackP are carrying on about this, taking it to deletion review and so forth, it begs the question: Why is this handful of editors arguing so vehemently against deleting this article? It just doesn't make any sense, no matter how objectively I look at it. I believe you, Minor4th and GregJackP are all involved somehow with the subject of the article or it would not matter that much to you. Why are you arguing so strongly in favor of keeping the article? It is ad garbage! No value to Wikipedia! If it is worth keeping, please explain why you think it should be kept from Wikipedia's standpoint and not Don Martin of Don Martin Public Affairs in Austin, Texas. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

I have done a very thorough job of explaining why it should be kept from the perspective of wikipedia in both the AfD and here. I have no connection to the subject whatsoever and this is not the first time you have accused (not even asked, but accused) myself and all other editors collaborating on this article of this. If you continue to make unfounded accusations I will consider it a personal attack. The statements you have made here clearly demonstrate that you haven't made any effort whatsoever to read, understand, or respect the opinions of others and I will not be responding to any further accusations or unfounded statements; next time I will simply template you for personal attacks or not assuming good faith, whichever is most appropriate. Thank you. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and relist - Close call. I understand the close given the sockpuppet circumstances, but I personally participated a great deal in the discussions and previous AfD and vetting of the subject and came to my own keep conclusion, along with other non-sock editors. I think there's a good chance that many of the keeps were legitimate and not influenced by the socks. I think a new AfD discussion is appropriate now that the socks are gone. Minor4th (talk) 06:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor4th, please disclose your connection to the subject and explain why you are so opposed to the deletion of an obviously fringe attempt at self promotion. You are the one who nommed my first article, Valley Entertainment Monthly over the edit wars we had on the Martin piece. You think a newspaper is less notable than some stuffed shirt from Texas whose business effectively is hired by private corporations to influence public opinion? Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

• Reply - This comment from Nineteen Nightmares is intolerable on several fronts. First, I have nothing to disclose. I do not know the subject and have no connection to him or his business in any way. I got involved in this debate by responding to a RfC on a legal issue about the lawsuit. It was my intent to limit my participation on the article to that one comment, but I got drawn in to the drama. Second, we did not have an edit war on the Martin piece -- you included an external link to an unsourced document that had nothing to do with Martin or the article, and you called it "full transcript" when it was not a transcript at all; I reverted your edit, and if I didn't call it vandalism it was only because I was assuming good faith. If the article had not been deleted, I could provide a diff. In response to reverting your edit, you accused me of sock puppetry, COI, attempting to own the article, taking it too personally, etc. You then reported me to AN/I noticeboard as a persistent vandal or spammer, but you have apparently not taken to heart the outcome of that report or the counsel you received when you were blocked. This is about the fourth or fifth time you have accused me of a conflict, and that is ludicrous, as has been pointed out to you several times. Third, the BLP policy applies to all Wiki pages as I have learned and it's inappropriate to refer to Mr. Martin as a "stuffed shirt" -- and in the interest of full disclosure, it is I who initially referred to him as "co-sleaze #2" and was reprimanded for my comment as being disrespectful and in violation of the BLP policy, which it most certainly was. And finally, my AfD nom of "your" (speaking of WP:OWN) VEM article has nothing to do with Don Martin other than the fact that I became aware of the non-notable subject as a result of my participation in various Don Martin discussions. You habitually attack editors and make these absurd accusations whenever another editor disagrees with you. Your behavior has been the subject of many disruptions, a block, and various admin attempts to bring you into the realm of civility. Your participation on the Don Martin has been nearly as egregious as Don Martin's and the socks. You cannot accept the idea that your edits are not the last word or that consensus might not support your view. You rarely make a comment without including some seriously offensive insult directed at someone who just happened to disagree with you. Please stop. -- Minor4th (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not sure where it can be inferred that any editor participating in this discussion ever viewed AfD as a straight numerical vote. The purpose for summarizing the previous keeps and deletes was to determine if there was a consensus without the socks. There was clearly no consensus when the socks are ignored, but there was a rough consensus in favor of keep. In either event, policy instructs that the article is kept and the AfD closed. I know Balloonman said that he was leaning toward delete until the last few keeps, but looking back at the XfD, three out of the first five votes were "keep" so I'm unsure how the discussion could have ever been construed as a consensus for delete. Considering the strength of the arguments in favor of keep or delete, there is no way to come up with a consensus to delete. I have just spent a good deal of time reviewing the deletion policy, AfD process and the process for closing, and deletion review policy because I want to make sure I understand what actually is within the bounds of discretion for an admin to delete an article without discussion or without rough consensus. I have found that an article that does not meet the notability guidelines or verifiable/reliable guidelines can be summarily deleted. The AfD was previously closed with the comment "Marginal notability, but enough to be kept." The participation of socks does not negate the rationale for keeping the article the first time around. Ambiguous notability BLP's can be deleted if requested by the subject even if no consensus is reached. This does not apply either --although the notability of Don Martin is contested, his notability was determined by the closing admin to be sufficient for keeping the article, and the subject requested that the article be kept. Should his bad behavior override BLP policy or deletion policy? No. I don't see anywhere in policy that an entire AfD can or should be disregarded out of process because there were socks participating in the discussion. I do not believe that admin discretion reaches that far, even when dealing with sockpuppetry and even when dealing with BLP's. Having reconsidered this issue and after having reviewed the various policies and guidelines, I do believe that the article was improperly deleted against policy as a punishment or as a reaction to a puppetmaster and without consideration of the prior legitimate arguments in favor of keeping the article. Notability was established in the XfD, and this deletion review is not the proper place to take another pass at having the article deleted on notability criteria. Giftiger, you probably don't completely agree with me now that I have changed my opinion about the appropriate bounds of admin discretion (and nothing personal, Balloonman, it's just my evaluation of the policies and guidelines I read). Minor4th (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Bewilderingly, there appears to be support for returning this marginally-notable BLP that's creating sockpuppetry and conduct issues to AfD, thereby at least temporarily restoring it instead of giving Balloonman's outstandingly wise decision the snowball endorse that it deserves. In view of this would anyone object to me linking this discussion on the BLP noticeboard for their input?—S Marshall T/C 11:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is an excellent idea. We need as much light on this one as possible. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

• • With the sockpuppets dealt with (hopefully for good), I'm not sure there's really a reason to list this on the BLP noticeboard anymore; the article seems well sourced and there are no longer interfering influences from sockpuppets to disrupt the consensus process. Clearly there is some debate as to its notability and other concerns though, so I have no objection to it being listed on the BLP noticeboard to better discuss this issue. I believe it should also be returned to AfD however, in any case. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and relist as an outside observer of this whole affair - it seems that restoring the article in the shape that Tyrenius left it, without any socks, and hopefully without any more to come in either direction it might actually survive, although it might not either...Modernist (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure I feel the closure was well within normal and reasonable admin discretion. Sure the keeps and deletes were split but we don't merely "count votes" here but rather weigh arguments and the issues regarding notability and sourcing compliant with Notability has never been overcome. Some people asking Balloonman to reconsider on his talk page seem to be viewing AFD as a straight numerical vote and just counting the bolded deletes and keeps, which I think is unfortunate. I don't have any objection to another AFD and in light of the tainting of the last one by socks, I was intending to take it back there anyway, but I really don't find this closure objectionable or problematic and I'm quite comfortable endorsing it. Sarah 14:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to disagree, and find your position to be a little disingenuous. On the closing of the SPI, I believe that you noted that the !vote was tainted by the socks and that it should be readdressed. My purpose in noting the count was to show that there was no consensus, not to state that the numerical count was what was the deciding factor. If one looks at both the history of the article (and its archives), there were numerous refs that proved notability, and not just from the local area (i.e., the NY Times article mentioning Martin). It is my contention that the irritation over the puppetmaster's actions clouded the issue and made the arguments of reliable editors be summarily dismissed. To summarily dismiss these arguments is an abuse of discretion, IMHO. I believe that this is also the position of Minor4th, Giftiger and Ty, or at least that is how I understood it. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Er, wow, okay "disingenuous", that's rather insulting. "On the closing of the SPI, I believe that you noted that the !vote was tainted by the socks and that it should be readdressed." So what? Of course the AFD was tainted and it needed to be readdressed and Balloonman has readdressed it by reconsidering his closure in light of the SPI. After the SPI results came back, I suggested to Balloonman that he might want to look at the SPI and revisit the AFD, so I'm not sure what the problem is or what's so disingenuous about me being satisfied with the fact that he did exactly that. Balloonman was clear in his initial closure that the notability had not been clearly established and the keep was pretty borderline and he noted that he'd support deletion if the article subject requested it - that's not an option we offer people who are clearly notable so it's indicative of how borderline the closure was. Thus I don't consider his subsequent closure of delete as being very far away from the initial closure of keep that was so borderline the subject's opinion would be enough to tip it over into a delete, and so I find the reclosure reasonable and within typical admin discretion. Additionally, I raised the issues of the questionable and borderline notability and the lack of the type of sources required by the notability criteria a number of times, even pointing to Balloonman's closing AFD note, so this isn't something I'm just pulling out of my ear because I'm annoyed with the socks and I find that suggestion really insulting of my integrity as an editor and an administrator. Here again you seem to be missing the point about the sourcing and notability. Sure, there are lots of articles - to use your precise phrasing - "mentioning Martin" and that's perfectly fine for verifying facts in the article, but it's not sufficient for establishing notability. Secondly, most of these sources "mentioning Martin" aren't actually about him but rather occurred during the course of his work as a pr specialist - quoting him from press releases, quoting him as a spokesperson or pr representative of an organisation, about projects he's involved with etc, i.e. typical articles you'd expect to see pop up for any working pr specialist and I don't see those types of articles alone as sustaining notability for a pr specialist any more than, say, having 100 articles written by a journalist would support their notability. We still require the type of coverage described in the notability guidelines in order to sustain an assertion of notability and justify the article. I still think you're missing the point about numbers - we've had AFDs closed - and upheld at DRV - which have actually gone significantly against the majority commenting on the AFD. The closure can and will go against the majority if the strength of arguments are with the minority, so looking at a 50-50 split and claiming that means there's no consensus is misunderstanding the way AFD works and the way that admins look at them. Sarah 06:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• An example of an AFD being closed against the clear majority and subsequently upheld at DRV is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruno Masse, with 7 keeps against the nominator and a weak delete, closed as delete and upheld at DRV here. This is obviously a very different situation to the current case but I'm just using it as an example for the people not very familiar with AFD and DRV who don't seem to understand the issue of numbers and strength of arguments. Sarah 10:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Abuse of discretion was probably too strong on my part, but I still believe that the arguments of reliable editors were discounted due to the actions of the socks. GregJackP (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sarah, my comments above were not meant to be insulting, I was just trying to explain how it came across to me. My impression of your comments was that the AfD !vote was tainted by the socks - as it clearly was - but then that once the socks were removed, we discard the reasoning of the other, presumably reliable, editors? It would be just as easy for any of us to feel insulted by the implication that our arguments were not valid or otherwise "strong" enough, but I have made a choice to WP:AGF and believe that you have a different opinion, not that you are belittling us or our arguments. I agree that mere mention of a PR specialist's name is not sufficient for notability, just as I believe that the single book on postcards does not confer notability, but that is not the only thing here. There are references for his involvement in Legi/Slate and the Texas Government Newsletter, in the TDSL/WMI lawsuit (the later had numerous refs explicitly discussing Martin and his role), etc. Reasonable people can disagree without taking it personally. As I stated, my comments were not meant to be insulting, but to point out a stance that appeared to me to be inconsistant. At no point did I impugn anyone's integrity, nor do I believe that any of the admins involved are just pulling things out of thin air - but we are all human and subject to error, mistakes, emotion, and inadvertant mis-interpretations. I just think that Wikipedia would be better served to relist, and don't see a point to one's statement that the other side does not have a clear understanding of either the AfD or DRV process just because they are making a different argument. Perhaps S Marshall's idea of listing this on the BLP noticeboard will help by getting some fresh eyes to look at this - I know it worked when SheffieldSteel came in to look at the lawsuit section. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • (ec)Just for the record, when I first read the AFD, I was leaning towards delete to begin with because I didn't think a book on postcards established notability and with his removal from the lawsuit it diminished that facet as it was clearly a case of WP:BLP1E. But Don's support of keeping the article and the flood of "puppets" at the end, pursuaded me to keep it--which is why I prefixed the original keep with "Marginal notability." Those puppets/Don, pushed my decision to keep. But again, I have no problem if we decide that Don's actions tainted the process enough that a new AfD is required.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldnt call it an abuse of discretion. I think it's within Balloonman's appropriate sphere of discretion to delete the article under the circumstances. However, I think a better practice, considering the non-sock editors who spent a great deal of time on the article and AfD discussions, would have been to notify such editors and seek input before deleting. At least three of the major contributing editors (4 including Ty) seek review and/or prefer that the article be kept. I am not pleased at all with the behavior of the numerous socks and the manner in which they manipulated the article and related discussions, but the fact remains that I and others spent considerable time and effort balancing the article, vetting the subject, and very carefully considering notability as well as reliability and verifiability of sources. Who enjoys seeing their efforts laid to waste? -- Minor4th (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda like you nominating my first attempt at contributing here, Valley Entertainment Monthly which you know I spent considerable time trying to improve. How can you say this stuffed shirt from Texas (an individual with spotty refs at best) is more notable than a paper with the following interviews: Stan Lee creator of Spider-man, Incredible Hulk, Fantastic Four Mart Nodell Beat Farmers before Country Dick Montanta died Kevin DuBrow now deceased Ian Moore Mart Nodell creator of the Green Lantern, 1940. Frankie Banali among many others. Real non-notable. Its nice everyone is so objective here. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

• Completely agree with Minor4th here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, seeing your efforts laid to waste is always a risk in participating in this project. It's something you have to learn to tolerate if you want to contribute to this project. It also doesn't matter what the contributing editors want. The contributing editors have a vested interested and have stated they don't want to see their work go to waste, so they're invested in the outcome. This is purely about whether the deletion was within policy - not whether you agree with it or whether Martin agrees with it or whatever. Sarah 06:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to clarify, obviously the fact that I put such a degree of work into contributing to this article is going to mean I don't want to lose this work, but more importantly I feel that throughout this process, a collaboration of at least 4 previously uninvolved editors agreed that the article was notable, reliably sourced, and suitable for wikipedia, and agreed on changes which could be made to overcome the problems of POV and the appropriate level of detail on various sections in the article. We gave the article a thorough vetting and it's not simply that I don't want to see that work wasted, it's more that that work's primary aim was to evaluate the article's suitability in the first place; but it seems to me that all four users in support of keeping the article at AfD are being disregarded because of the actions of a group of socks, it deserves more thorough discussion with the exclusion of these outside influences; a lot of rather weak arguments for deletion were thrown around the AfD, and at one point NineteenNightmares made some very scathing comments and accused many of us being sockpuppets before the sockpuppets actually joined the conversation, as well as dumping the contents of his talk page into the AfD discussion in an attempt to obstruct the process. I'm not sure if NighteenNightmares has a personal issue with the article, but he was one of two or possibly three delete arguments I believe, and the arguments essentially amounted to "I don't like it". It should speak volumes as to his own personal motives here as he filed the AfD immediately after it was closed as keep not once, but twice, with procedural closes both times. This should not be taken as a personal snipe at NighteenNightmares, but I did feel that his arguments on the Afd perfectly demonstrated why the keeps seemed to have the advantage both in terms of numbers (which of course is not important) and strength of arguments (which is). With the exclusion of the sockpuppets now, I feel that a new AfD would better reflect consensus, and given the unusual circumstances and that there didn't seem to be a clear consensus reached in the last AfD (though I maintain that it seemed to be swinging towards keep), a future AfD should be very carefully considered before being closed in either direction. Sorry for the essay. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to defend 19NIghtmares (I've been very critical of his behaviour, have given him some very strict warnings and declined his unblock request) but I think it's very unfair to start making this about someone who has elected to not even participate in this discussion. This isn't about the personalities involved and there have been a number of very problematic editors on both sides so I really don't think it's productive to start going down that path. In all fairness to 19Nightmares, I think he inadvertently got the idea about re-nominating the article from me. I told Martin that if he would not release his intense grip on the article and allow it to undergo normal Wikipedia editing so it could be brought in line with policy, it would end up having to go back to AFD and I pointed out Balloonman's clear closing comments that the "keep" was borderline and that there were still outstanding issues that needed to be resolved. Not long after, 19Nightmares renominated it. I obviously didn't mean him to go and do that and had he allowed me to give him advice, I would have suggested waiting at least a month or two as an AFD four days after the last one was closed is just not going to fly. I disagree that 19Nighmare's arguments amount to "I don't like it". His arguments are based on the subject not being notable, the sources not being sufficient to support a claim of notability, and self-promotion. As for the claim the AFD is being disregarded, you're misunderstanding this completely. Please read Balloonman's comments above where he explains very clearly that he did not delete the articles in reaction to the socks, that when he closed it originally, it was very borderline and without the late votes from the socks, he would have closed it as delete. Balloonman is a very honorable man so I have no reason whatsoever to doubt his word on that. This is not disregarding the AFD. Also note one of the people who participated in the AFD and voted to keep, DGG, an administrator, has endorsed the closure. Sarah 10:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Balloonman's reason for deletion recites the subject's deception and abuse of process. Honorable as he may be, it cannot be said that Balloonman did not delete as a reaction to the socks. Although DGG now endorses close/delete, in the XfD DGG found Martin to be notable. How can this be explained as anything other than a reaction to the socks and disregard of the previous AfD? --Minor4th (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course I'm aware that seeing one's effort laid to waste is the risk of participating here. Sarah, it seems you're parsing words from my comment out of context. As Giftiger said, the whole purpose of that effort was to discern notability, the result of which was a keep based on sufficient notability. No doubt Balloonman is an honorable man, but even honorable men make mistakes. The deletion was out of process and outside policy. The article closed with a keep on grounds that did not change when the socks were disregarded. It was then closed without discussion and unless anyone is saying that Martin was notable two weeks ago and now he's not, the close/delete was against policy. At a minimum the article should be relisted for AfD because in fact this discussion has turned into what amounts to an AfD discussion on notability. Minor4th (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec) Restore and relist Thanks to Balloonman for raising it here. I felt his decision was an attempt to settle the matter cleanly, but the presence of the socks had a disproportionate effect in undermining others who wanted to keep the article. As mentioned above I've done a rough edit at User:Tyrenius/M to see what it looked like without the socks, and posted a summary at User_talk:Balloonman. What impressed me was the reasoned strength of argument by the four experienced editors who wanted to keep the article (and a fifth who questioned deletion), including DGG, who argued, "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." Martin is also a significant figure in another article, Texas Disposal Systems Landfill v. Waste Management Holding. On the delete side were only three editors, including the nom, who did not revisit the discussion following his initial one sentence; Nineteen Nightmares was the main proponent of deletion, and fails to convince with arguments such as, "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." Ty 14:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's stretching it to say that Fred was questioning deletion. He was questioning a strange rationale to "speedy delete" (which then swung to the opposite extreme and became a "speedy keep") but Fred offered no opinion on this particular article whatsoever. Sarah 16:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI -- It was my strong, speedy keep and the "strong, speedy" part was meant to be tongue in cheek as a kind of lighthearted jab at other votes that contained similar modifiers Minor4th (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't actually. Fred didn't reply to you- he responded to the 4804BT sock. It just looks now like he was talking to you because the socks have corrupted that page so much. There had been a comment at one point by 4804BT directly under your comment which was a speedy delete, then when Martin changed his mind and decided he would vote to keep his own biog, 4804BT came back and changed his comment to speedy keep. At some point (I can't be bothered going through the diffs to find it) the puppets refactored the page and removed 4804BT's vote, making it look like Fred was talking to you when he (and I) were not. 4804BT then came back and posted an entirely new keep. Sarah 10:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I would normally say relist, after an AfD affected so much by sockpuppettry, but in this case, for the reasons given by Balloonman in his closure, I think he made a good and perceptive closure making appropriate use of donoharm. (I did not think so at first, but re-reading it now, has convinced me.) My view seems to essentially be the same as S Marshall's DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, admins have particularly broad leeway in dealing with discussions tainted by irregularities such as socking, and they also have broader than normal discretion in dealing with BLPs. I simply do not see how that doubly-widened discretion has been abused here. T. Canens (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I certainly don't think that Balloonman has abused process here, and I don't think the decision should be overturned; but as a result of the previous disruption caused by sockpuppets, I believe this should be relisted at AfD and see what consensus says without the socks obfuscating the page. Even if this remains deleted, I believe the subject meets inclusion criteria well enough that it could be introduced at a later date after redrafting to make sure there's no COI taint left in it (though I believe all or at least most of that was removed by myself and other editors collaborating on this article.) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles can always be reintroduced, so long as they are not substantiatively the same as what was deleted. Non-notable individuals become notable or supporting documentation/evidence surface to prove their notability.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that was what I was getting at here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: At this point in the debate, having explained my intentions, asked for objections and seen none, I listed this matter on WP:BLP/N.—S Marshall T/C 11:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Admin made a well informed decision well within admin discretion. This close would not stop someone from writing a well sourced article that shows notability at a later time. I commend Ballonman for re-evaluating the situation and making changes that seemed appropriate. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Balloonman thought that the article already showed notability. His first close said, "Marginal notability, but enough to be kept". Ty 18:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly endorse deletion of article forever The subject of the article has made a mockery of Wikipedia, gamed it for his own selfish promotional and business purposes and continues to try and influence the piece. I worked on it for two weeks to try and clean it up and constant sock reversions of the sales data was enough to drive someone insane. Good job, Balloonman, as usual! Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

• Just FYI, it is not being suggested that the article be deleted "forever", nor is that wikipedia process. The article may still be recreated later providing it addresses the issues for which it was deleted at AfD. In addition, an article does not become inappropriate because an individual attempts to manipulate it for inappropriate reasons. Such an article should be edited, not deleted, and if your entire argument is simply that a user has tried to manipulate the article, then this isn't a valid argument for deletion or for endorsal as it does not meet policy. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor4th did the same thing on the first AfD for Martin with his "strong, speedy keep!" Did you chastise him, too? I doubt it. Please refrain from leaving any more of your insulting comments here as I am not interested in playing games with you. If you'd like to actually focus on content, we can do that and I would prefer it. I am not the one flailing around the place trying to silence someone else for personal reasons. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

Bulbapedia

Bulbapedia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Bulbapedia may not have had enough notability before to warrant an article, but it certainly seems worthy now. Here is the evidence supporting its restoration:

Gamepro article

In this article, Gamepro calls Bulbapedia "the Internet's most detailed Pokemon database project."

Another Gamepro article

Once again, Bulba is mentioned.

Geekosystem

They mention Bulba here, too.

Official Nintendo Magazine

They were mentioned in an official Nintendo magazine.

Escapist Magazine

Once again, a mention of Bulba.

Meta:Talk:Interwiki_map/Archives/2009-11 Meta:Interwiki_map

As you can see, they are listed on the interwiki map, here.

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style (writing_about_fiction)

And I quote:

Alternative outlets for fictional universe articles

Some other Wikipedia-like projects prefer in-universe perspective. These are a good alternative for editors interested in such topics. The following is a partial list:

• Bulbapedia — Describes the Pokémon universe.

Wikipedia:List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create

And I quote:

5. Any one of the 56 distinct regions in the Pokémon video game series or lieking mudkipz, or hering dat someon lieks mudkipz. Remember, not everyone is a Pokémon fanatic. Just most people, and they use Bulbapedia.

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources

It says here that because Bulbapedia is a wiki, it is not a credible source. However, Bulbanews is a moderated news network. That is a credible source, as they are always taking great care to ensure that their news and information is 100% correct.

On the encyclopedia dramatica (which I cannot link due to the spam filter,) you can read a frequently quoted line from an infamous Wikipedia admin which mentions them by name. I quote:

From Ryulong To "Aywana Txxxxxxx" < xxxxxxxxxx@lycos.com> Listen. I don't care if you are 13, or whatever. Stop vandalizing my page at the Japanese Wikipedia. It's your own fucking fault for impersonating me TWICE and I got my user name changed to the one that I should have had in the first place. Go edit Bulbapedia. I couldn't care less what you do over there. If you want, bring up your ban to the ArbCom at the English Wikipedia, but then all you can edit is your case. Just LEAVE ME ALONE YOU GOD DAMN CHILD.

Cnet article

And I quote:

"There are a lot of changes to previous iterations of the game, and if you want to read up on those, we refer you to the Bulbapedia article, since this is a review, not a list."

Cyberciefs:Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes

This book by Mathieu O'Neil mentions Bulbapedia in a list of encyclopediae.

School Library Journal

And I quote:

"Bulbapedia, the Internet's largest informational resource on Pokémon (with over 16,000 articles on the subject), uses the words "information" and "database" to describe the Pokédex."

Mania.com

This article mentions SOVA, which actually began on Bulba.

All of these links mention Bulbapedia. Some praise it, others use it as a reference.

Library Gaming Tool Kit

Games Radar Article

Another Games Radar Article

Yet another Games Radar article

Another from the School Library Journal

Another Gamepro Article

1up.com

Destructoid.com

And another Games Radar article

Given this monstrous amount of references and acknowledgements, I'd say Bulbapedia/Bulbagarden has more than passed the notability requirements. This is why I am requesting this review.Neo^(T) 01:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The deletion was over 5 years ago. I wouldn't object to a new article being created if it can meet notability guidelines. I am not sure if those sources are good, as I know little of Pokemon.--Milowent (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Actually, it was recreated and deleted multiple times since the initial deletion. I think this is because it had been on AfD, of course. In addition, a previous review request failed on February 18 of 2009, I believe. However, this was all quite awhile ago, now, so I feel that it is necessary to take another look at it.Neo^(T) 02:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one more thing: On the credibility of these sources, a good few of them have Wikipedia articles through their owners. Dan Abrams owns Gamepro and Geekosystem and Demand Media owns Escapist, the School Library Journal, and Mania. In addition, the article before may need to get a bit of a rewrite, as it was probably not enough to properly communicate the notability of the website. I personally do not do so well with content (I'm more of a fix-it guy, myself,) so I'll have to leave that part up to others.Neo^(T) 03:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the general notability guideline requires non-trivial coverage in multiple independant third-party reliable sources. The non-trivial part pretty much excludes anything which is merely a mention, lists etc. which seems to be all you list above. Reliable sources certainly excludes wikipedia - it isn't a reliable source. It doesn't matter how notable the sources themselves are if the coverage isn't non-trivial then it's no use, the source's notability doesn't rub off. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In situations like this, I would suggest a userspace draft is the way forward. I would probably be supportive of the article, but it's been deleted so many times that we need this extra step first. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Like they said, the sources have to talk about Bulbapedia in detail, and not be trivial mentions. If you can create a good userspace draft using sources like that, then maybe it can have an article. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just wanted to agree with the statement by Blake: I'm not seeing any detailed coverage of Bulbapedia. If you think there is, could you highlight the one or two articles that go into the greatest depth? Looking over the first few I'm not seeing enough. Hobit (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]