User talk:Austex/Donald G. Martin (Austin, Texas)

Situation: I have written an autobiographical WP:BLP WP:BLPSELF WP:AUTO, with great care as to a maintaining a neutral point of view, and I am intending to keep it on the subpage until further vetted by other editors as well (see disclosures and explation about notability below in my "Author's Comments"). I have no intent of moving it to article space "unless and until." I've taken great care to have excellent and diversified citations based on the Wikipedia notability requirements. Here are my questions: What is the proper template(s) to use on the article page or talk page to further elicit WP:FEEDBACK (which does not apparently work on a subpage like this)? Or to get other editors to review AND EDIT the article? I have twice posted on WP:EAR, WP:RFF and WP:COIN with little success on feedback other than a drawn out discussion with one editor as to whether or not a particular newspaper (Austin Business Journal) is indeed a legitimate newspaper (it is). But no edits. Plus I have a "new unreviewed article" template on the draft article itself. I would appreciate any guidance as to how to get more helpful feedback and/or specific edits. Thank you Austex • Talk 16:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

As your major problem is conflict of interest, I'd post at WP:COIN, the conflict of interest noticeboard, and ask for an opinion as to whether you are notable enough to warrant an article. I suspect the answer will be no, but I don't want to pre-empt any discussion. --Elen of the Roads

• Posted on WP:COIN by Austex Sept 17. Thanks for the help.Austex • Talk 15:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You could also try Editor requests assistance noticeboard to get some more opinions. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Posted at WP:EAR per suggestion Sept 17. Thank you.Austex • Talk 15:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Disclosure of COI

FULL DISCLOSURE: This is a draft of a self-written BLP article where the subject is also the author of the article. There is a clear WP:COI in this situation. Although not unheard of, it must be reviewed with the utmost of caution and care by other editors. Great care has been taken by the author to try and ensure a neutral point of view, but candid input and editing is strongly encouraged. I would prefer that there is discussion here before editing the actual article, but editing it now is certainly your perogative if you wish. Below are my expanatory comments. Austex • Talk 05:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Author's Comments

• Every effort has been taken to ensure a neutral point of view and not just written from a third party point of view. Even so, it is impossile to write the article without pointing our positive accomplishments (as one would in writing any BLP, which is what makes it worthy of being a BLP). Please assume good faith in the author of the article, but offering critiques is encouraged (especially on this talk page). The article has been tested for comments on subpage and vetted by others prior to moving it to articlespace.

• Establishing Notability: The first section of Career Summary is intended for the purpose of laying out the specific case for notability. (It can be deleted if needed). Likewise the inclusion of the four Biography-type profile articles are an important part of establishing notability of a BLP as well. Wikipedia policy on notability says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." These are not articles that simply mention the subject or quote the subject, but rather are bio-type articles about the subject of the BLP -- a very important distinction and a critical part of establishing notability according to Wikipedia policy. Generally only one such biography reference is needed. Four are provided here.

• Independent, highly credible, published, VERIFIABLE references: Wikipedia puts a premium on such references in establishing notability as well as verifying facts in the remainder of the article. Such references are provided in nearly all cases, and statements in the article are backed up by third-party, well established, verifiable sources.

• Dealing with paywall citations: Unfortunately, some of the articles from credible sources such as the Austin-American Statesman and Austin Business Journal if more than a year old are available only through paid archives (making a normal citation impossible). In such cases I have gone the extra mile by downloading the article text from the paid archive and making it available to readers through Wikipedia's Archive process. I now understand that his is not kosher regarding copyrighted material, and so I am converting the citations to the actual paid archive citation. I understand if someone asks about or a specic article I can email it to him or her.

• Wikipedia policy says: The proper way to get your own writing about yourself in if you really think you can meet the inclusion criteria . . . is to make a proposal containing the text you want, instead of just putting it up directly, and seek the consensus of the community through discussion. Not only does this provide independent viewpoints on it that can allow you to discover biases you were not aware of having, it also helps provide an indication of good faith and that you are willing to put the interests of Wikipedia first instead of standing in a position of conflict of interest. That is why I am offered this article on a subpage first for feedback and comment rather than moving it immediately to article space.

• I sincerely welcome all detailed comments, positive or negative, as well as all suggested edits. Thank you very much. Austex • Talk 21:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

COMMENTS BY OTHERS

Jezhotwells comments copied here from the COIN page

WP:FEEDBACK is the venue for this. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This was the site the adminstrator suggested when I did a {adminhelp}. But I will post it there as well.'Austex • Talk 19:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I would have suggested feedback, but no-one ever responds there unless it takes MarcusBritish's fancy. I have my doubts about this chap's notability, and I was hoping for a couple of other opinions on that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I looked. Non-notable estate agent with political ambitions. Probably wouldn't last a week in main space. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, you didn't look very closely. I am not and never have been a real estate agent and am not selling anything. I did develop one of the largest New Urbanism projects ($400 million) in the five-county Austin metro area as part of a varied career. Nor do I have political ambitions -- rather I ran some of the most major political campaigns in the Austin area including for Nolan Ryan and for a new International Austin airport. I don't see how you get two completely false assumptions out of what you read. If so, I must have done an extremely poor job of writing. Austex • Talk 22:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, property developer, businessman, whatever; in my opinion this does not meet WP:BIO. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on notability says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I have provided four such secondary reliable sources which are probably worth reading.Austex • Talk 22:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

In WP:BIO, which you cite above, the number one criteria says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, and independent of each other." So it's not so much what you personally think of the biography of the person or what they do as it is wheter it meets Wikipedia WP:BIO criteria. Personal biases and presumptions are not part of the criteria. Austex • Talk 23:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Commented there. Danger (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Danger

• I've deleted your collection of texts of copyrighted articles; it is against several policies use Wikipedia to host copyrighted material. It seems that notability hinges on whether Austin Business Journal is a reliable source. The [1] page of The Business Journals appears to indicate that the journals are marketing venues rather than sources of independent information, but then "premier media solutions platform for companies strategically targeting business decision makers" is one of those tiresome biz jargon strings that may not mean anything at all. Taken on face-value, it looks like this is not a notable subject. --Danger (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• see note below about not using these references and using archive citations instead. I am not at all happy about the deletion of an entire body of work without any discussion whatsoever. Nor your unwillingness to email me a copy. I will pursue it with the deletion review staff..

• Interesting observations re the Business Journal. Especially your observation about the Austin Business Journal not being relevant. I assume you have not pulled up any of these referneces to read and see that they are legitimate, verifiable third-party articles and not promotional pieces. The ABJ is not a promotional publication.

Over half of the references are from the Austin-American Statesman, one of the premier American daily newspapers. See American City Business Journals for further reference. The Austin Busness Journal is a highly respected weekly business news source (hence the name "Business" in the name) newspaper that is part of the national business network [2] covering 41 of the nations top markets. I see it quoted liberally throughout Wikipedia in citations. Like any newspaper it uses ad revenue but that does diminsh it's news value, any more than ads diminish the New York Times. Articles or the front cover of the ABJ cannot be cited for you since it is a Paid Archive, but reading the articles would clearly show they are serious journalistic business articles. You seem to have me in a Catch 22 in that I cannot show them to you because you deleted the texts, yet you disregard them as being valid significant journalitic efforts. That's not very fair. Note too that Wikipdia specifically says what constitue a relaible published source is purposefully "overly broad".

• I see NOTHING whatsoever in your reference page that indicates this is not a fully credible news source. Look at some actual articles, or the list of articles in each issue, and you will see that your observations and inference based on single ambigious sentence are grossly incorrect.

• NOTE: Here are three references from the Austin Business Journal from the actual articles that are not archive-based and that might be helpful to read to validate the ABJ's legtimacy as a valid news source: , , and .

• NOTE 2: -- I just found a non-paid link that shows the business articles in a the most recent Austin Business Journal issue. Business articles are listed on the left side of the page. See HERE Austex • Talk 14:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

As for the article texts, with the exception of the Baytown Sun which were actual copies of microfilm, all of the 40 or so other articles showed article texts, not reproduced copies of articles. It was an editor of Wikipedia as the one that suggested citing them in this manner. What do you recommend as the proper citation? Perhaps to show only the short portion of that references soley Donald Martin (the equivelent to a quote, for example) in this manner? To simply use "url=www.Statesman.com" which provides no relevant information at all? Using actual citations of Paid Archive references of the actual archive article unfortunately includes my username and password embedded in the citation. That's not fair or probably legal. I appeciate your concern, I really do, but what do you recommend as an accetable citation? What is the proper way to cite a major daily newspaper's Paid Archive articles? Austex • Talk 15:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Rather than basing my evaluation of ABJ on my personal feelings about the articles, I am basing it on what ABJ sys about itself. If I understand correctly, ABJ considers itself primarily a venue for companies to promote themselves. The description appears to be about the content itself, not advertising. (I really wish business people would write in English, so we wouldn't need to dissect their meaning-free prose, but I digress.) This raises concerns about the independence of it's coverage.

• Your charachterization of the Business Journal is simply not true. Look at the actual articles they cover (footnoted above). These are not in any manner "promotional" articles. They are a solid news source. You are making a very broad inference from one sentence that says they "serve advertisers" too. What publication doesn't serve their advertisers? That does not mean they sell advertiser news stories Austex • Talk 14:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Also see Wikipedia itself at American City Business Journals where the is no mention at all of thir creating "promotional" articles. I am flabergasted at your questioning of this network of Business Journals across the country as being non-authorative. THey are used a s sources throughout Wikipedia. You cannot "buy" an article in the Business Journal.
• Lastly, Wikipedia says that he definition of what is a valid source for purposes of notability should be very broad. This discussion is diverting attention from the real issues. Austex • Talk 21:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources are not required to be online. You may use {{cite news}} and omit the url parameter to cite articles behind a paywall. --Danger (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I will do that on one or two articles that are not in the newspaper's own archives.

Danger, would you consider reveting the deletion of the articles text subpage for just a few days to allow further discussion of the issue among other editors? This would have the added benefit of allowing editors to read the ABJ articles to see that they are serious journalistic business stories and not advertorials. How else can I refute your allegation? Please allow me a fair chance to just make my case. Thanks. Austex • Talk 15:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No. Hosting copyrighted material is not an issue that we can fudge. In addition to violating a core principle (that of free content), it exposes Wikipedia to legal action. If you would like review of the deletion, you may request one at deletion review. --Danger (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. I understand and I'm certainly sensitive to the issue. Given that I spent many, many hours tracking down these articles on paid archives, can you send me an email copy for my file in order to possibly extract out just the relevant sentences in the future? I have deleted references to the page of actual articles (which Danger deleted without discussing it first, or discussing it later). Therefore I am, with great hesitation, using the archive page citation in it's place for those articles where needed. Austex • Talk 20:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Web archive services

Danger - apparently there is a way to preserve portions of actual articles, especially those behind paywalls, and for purposes of making citations and preventing citation rot as follows located atWikipedia article on Archive Services

"A way to prevent link-rot is to use a web archiving service. The two most popular services are the Wayback Machine, which passively archives many web pages, and WebCite, which provides on-demand web archiving. These services collect and preserve web pages for future use even if the original web page is moved, changed, deleted, or placed behind a pay wall (emphasis is mine). Web archiving is especially important when citing web pages that are unstable or prone to changes, like time sensitive news articles or pages hosted by financially distressed organizations. Once you have the URL for the archived version of the web page, use the archiveurl= and archivedate= parameters in the citation template that you are using. The template will automatically incoporate the archived link into reference."

• Danger - I sincerely would be most appreciative if you will please email me a copy of the original articles texts, or undlete them briefy, which are otherwise now unavailable anywhere, and I will look into using this procedure where apropriate for citing the more important articles currently hidden behind paywalls, using Wikipedia procedures above. Austex • Talk 23:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind. Since I had not heard back from you re the courtesy request, I got an un-deletion request fulfilled instead. Wikipedia has an archive service that will archive these news stories and provide a citation for use in articles. I will use that instead of trying to archive them myself. I also have an admin request in to verify that the Business Journals are legitimate unbiased, credible news sources. A look at ABJ should be more than satisfactory re the business coverage, but since you still have doubts I will pursue this further. Austex • Talk 14:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will pursue that avenue. I am happy for the article to be re-written as necessary. I realize such articles are discouraged. And so I am and will try hard to prove notability. Wikipedia WP:BIO section on notability says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I have provided numerous secondary reliable sources that are independent of me. These are not just hometown business profiles'. My concern is that some editors base their belief about notability on what they read versus following Wikipedia policy on notability. Does that make sense or am I barking up the wrong tree? Also, to show good faith re Wikipeida, I am asking for opinion and edits on this article in subspace as opposed to moving it to article space anytime soon.Austex • Talk 18:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Commments by WikiDan61

Don, the arguments that occurred above are precisely why Wikipedia strongly discourages autobiographies. Your own image of yourself as a notable person based on profiles in local media does not mesh with Wikipedia's image of notability based on significant coverage in reliable sources. Hometown business profiles are routinely dismissed as evidence of significant coverage because every local media outlet wants to highlight their own local talent -- this does not mean the talent is notable, only that the media outlet wants to get some "local color". Your best bet would be to request an article and let someone else write it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion . I appreciate each one that I get and have posted to every site suggested to me on this page (see above). I posted the site today at request an article and will wait to hear what they have to say as well. Austex • Talk 22:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC).

I tend to agree with WikiDan61 above. The article doesn't make it clear why you are notable beyond your local area?Theroadislong (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Repostings for feedback

• Reposted on Conflict of Interest Noticeboard WP:COIN -- Austex • Talk 16:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• Reposted on Editor Assistance Requests WP:EAR -- Austex • Talk 16:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• Posted for feedback at WP:FEEDBACK -- Austex • Talk 22:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• Posted for review at WP:RA today -- Austex • Talk 22:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Copy discussion from Help Desk

I am copying this discussion from the help desk because notability and other such questions belong here and not there. Help Desk is for questions about Wikipedia and not detailed notability and article discussions. Comments welcome below. Thanks. Austex • Talk 14:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC) >br>

To ensure continuity of the discussions, the discussion below with -- Orange Mike-- from the help Desk are cut and pasted here from Help Desk He raises a valid point should be discused further.

Frankly, Don, I haven't responded because I don't think you're any closer to being notable as we define it around here than you were the last time you tried. If you're genuinely notable, somebody else will write about you (and more impartially than you can), just as they did about the other, more notable Don Martins. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Mike. That's why I am putting it out here for review and not in articlespace. I realize autobiographical articles are discouraged. And so I am and will try hard to prove notability. I am concerned about your use of "as we define it around here," as if there is a cabal of editors that decided what gets in and what doesn't. No one controls Wikipedia. Much has changed in this article. Major new bio article hav bene added to meet Wikipeida standards. So please cut me some slack, please read the new article, and allow me to give you my reasoning re notability versus just an offhand comment that I'm obviously not notable and to wait the rest of my life for someone to come along (with no detail as to why it is not notable):

• First, the Wikipedia WP:BIO section on notability says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." As you can see, the new bio has been much more extensively cited with just these kinds of references since the original draft. The current article has 53 truly excellent, independent, verifiable, high-quality citations.

• Secondly, in WP:BIO, the number one criteria says '"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published articlces secondary sources which are reliable, and independent of each other." I HAVE NOW PROVIDED FOUR SUCH BIO ARTICLES. NOT EVEN ONE OF WHICH WERE INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL DON MARTIN ARTICLE. I am really working hard to establish true notability and I hope you will look at these actual bio articles.

• Third, Wikipedia policy says: "The proper way to get your own writing about yourself in if you really think you can meet the inclusion criteria . . . is to make a proposal containing the text you want, instead of just putting it up directly, and seek the consensus of the community through discussion. Not only does this provide independent viewpoints on it that can allow you to discover biases you were not aware of having, it also helps provide an indication of good faith and that you are willing to put the interests of Wikipedia first instead of standing in a position of conflict of interest. That is why I am offered this article on a subpage first for feedback and comment rather than moving it immediately to article space. So far, however, I have received no openly constructive edits, suggestions or assistance which would help me to make it better or to better meet notabiity requirements.

• Lastly, Wikipedia policy says that "the definition of what is valid for purposes of notability should be very broad." I would be most appreciative if you would assume good faith on my part and recognize that I am making a careful and hopefully broader and more well-reasoned attempt to follow policy and to insert a nuetral point of view, and that you or others would read the article on it's merits (rather than recalling the previous attempt without seeing how it differs) and to consider it on its own merit. A huge amount of time has been spent to greatly and significantly improve this article.

SUMMARY:After looking at numerous other biographical articles, I see many that do not have as much grounds for notability as this article does. And Wikipedia provides for a WP:BLPSELF route to an article. My waiting until "someone else writes about you" is one option, but the BIO option is also another allowable and legitimate way to go. I would truly appprecaite you reviewing it in that light as I can say I personally think it meets the notability test (and the original article didn't) hence my placing it out there for constructive feedback. I'd be delighted to revise it to ensure it is not a self-promoting tone. I think (and could be wrong) that I have attempted to write impartially and in the style that I have seen many other articles address business activities, business ownership, publishing, entrenuership, sales of businesses, real estate development, etc. Some hints along those lines would be helpful and appreciated. Even a total re-write would be welcome. Austex • Talk 22:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

So how DO I get constructive feedback?

I have posted this proposed article on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard WP:COIN, Editor Assistance Requests WP:EAR, for feedback WP:FEEDBACK, at WP:RA and at the Wikipedia Helpdesk asking for constructive input on the article. Other than two editors offering their offhand coments but not assistance, I am at a loss as to what to do. I am perfectly willing to adjust the tone or make major re-writes with some direction from someone (the tone seems OK to me if it were anyone else I was writing about, just as I have done extensive writing on other pages.) Someone please give me an example of improving the tone. Unfortunately accomplishments are still accomplishments and they are hard to hide and yet still show notabilty. PLEASE, how do I get real, honest, constructive feedback? Austex • Talk 21:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You are getting real, honest, constructive feedback. You've had four highly experienced Wikipedians tell you that this article will probably not survive a deletion discussion because the topic is not notable. (Plus however many looked and decided it wasn't worth repeating what we said.) If you insist on asking until you get the answer you want, why don't you just move this to mainspace. Then you can have the issue settled for you at WP:AfD. --Danger (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well put. I honestly do hear what you are saying. Really, I do, and I appreciate your honesty. What I was getting out was WHY is it not notable, as it appears to me to meet the tests set out by Wikipedia for notability, and/or what can be done to re-write it to make it more acceptable, less self-aggrandizing (if it is) or more neutral in tone? I have read and re-read the notability quidelines (and even have set some of them out above) and it appears to me that it absolutely does meet the notability requirements. But it seems as if (to me)that such editors are not valuing it in terms of the written guidelines, but rather based their own feelings...and the fact that they are upset because it is autobiographical. Some without reading it or without comparing it to the Wikipedia notability guidance. Just because it is autobiographical doesn't make it non-notable. I'm not asking until I get the answer I want (Lord knows that is not going to happen) but rather to ask, politely, for GUIDANCE based on the notability issues, not a quick blow-off to go away and then maybe someone will write something. That isn't going to happen either and we all know it. Austex • Talk 03:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are few factoid highlights re notability to consider, as it it appears to me:

• As a young twenty-year old published, edited and later sold a state-wide newsletter on Texas Government
• Co-founded in the 1970's (well before the age of desktops or even Microsoft or Apple) a national computerized bill vote tracking service on the US Congress and sold it to the Washington Post.
• Chaired and managed the successful citizen's effort to bring Austin an International airport (Austin Bergstrom International Airport!) and to approve bonds for building same.
• Likewise ran the effort to approve bonds for a publicly-built stadium for Nolan Ryan to bring a minor league team (The Round Rock Express) to the Austin-Round Rock metro area.
• Founded 21 years ago and then later sold a highly-acclaimed (see articles) Public Affairs firm representing an amazing list of state and national clients.
• Simultanously developed a $400 million, mixed-use new urban land development that is the largest ever in the entire 5-county metro area, and it is completely 100% sold out. In partnership with Fort Worth financier Ed Bass of the Bass Brothers.
• Author of a postcard history book on Austin by Arcadia Press.
• Founded and Chaired a citizen's effort to protect an endangered species and was successful in obtaining a protective USF&W 10-A permit for the Georgetown Salamander (you don't see many "developers" doing that!)
• Am currently developing a startup reputation repair workbook soon to be for sale Here
• Provided 53 extremely well-vetted high-quality independent citations to reference events and items above as well as others (and rejected probbly as many more that were not used).
• Provide four independent bio articles (not articles in which I am quoted, but rather where I am the subject of the article) as per notability REQUIREMENTS.

I apologize that I took the route of trying to do this autobiographicaly, instead of some sleezy way through a meat puppet or paid writer. I'm trying to be honest and up-front here and to make the straight-up case for notability. If I cannot, then I'll go away (disappointed) but will go away. But not without making my case based on Wikipedia rules and guidelines re notability, not based on opinions about meAustex • Talk 03:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Not that is an excuse, but I see hundreds of articles on people and busineses that are less notable. As I'm sure you do as well. Austex • Talk 14:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)