Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Martinez

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. The article needs significant work, but AfD is not for cleanup. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Martinez[edit]

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

Not entirely sure what is going on with this article as I have not yet completely worked through the edit history. But regardless, it fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. PROD declined without explanation. Safiel (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Martinez is the mayor pro tem of a large and well known city in the United States - Austin, Texas. He's a well known figure in the community as well. It seems someone, perhaps from his campaign, has sought to remove any unflattering information from the page. TexianPolitico (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If he was the elected Mayor, I would say keep. But as a city council member, even as Mayor pro tem, does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. He has some local, negative, notoriety, which seems to be limited to Austin. But it is local and not enough to pass WP:GNG. I won't comment about the additions or removals from the article, as they are not relevant to this discussion. Safiel (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Martinez is also the head of the Capital Metropolitan Transit Authority. They run all the buses and commuter trains in the region. That should make him even more notable. Besides, do we not have wikipedia pages for other city councilhumans around the nation? I know there are pages on candidates and such. Shoot, he's more notable than most congress people and every single one of them has a page. TexianPolitico (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:POLITICIAN grants automatic notability to Congressmen and members of State Legislatures. However, that automatic notability does NOT extend to city councilmen. There are articles for council members, but in those cases, they have sufficient notability beyond their local city. That doesn't seem to be the case for this guy, at least as far as I have been able to determine. Safiel (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the sources in the article (diff page). While some of the references include mentions of the individual, some are comprised of significant coverage. The topic passes WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article crosses verifiability and notability thresholds, including point 2 of WP:POLITICIAN. That said, the article needs attention as it's largely a WP:COATRACK for the "controversies" and gives them undue weight. But that's a matter for clean-up, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's a minor local city council member. He's not even known outside the city limits. Cervanates (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Northamerica1000. MaxMercy (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has problems but notability is not an issue here. Whether or not people know him outside of Austin is completely irrelevant since all we're looking for is significant coverage in reliable sources. It's fine that all these sources are based in Austin. (And besides, Austin is a large and important city and we want Wikipedia to cover local Austin politics) Pichpich (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article seems pretty one-sided, most of it is devoted to criticism. I have no opinion on whether the criticisms are valid or not but I don't think its appropriate to use wikipedia articles as a weapon against someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarvis Sherbourne (talk • contribs) 20:30, 29 March 2012 (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.