Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Ruttle Martinez

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Speedy Keep. Bad faith nom by single purpose account that was later blocked for vandalism on this article. IrishGuy talk 21:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shane Ruttle Martinez

Shane Ruttle Martinez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a pure vanity article. Most of the sources are student newspapers or unverifiable sources such as radio broadcasts or the unpublished archives of the Marxist-Leninist party. The sources for other media are not online and should be verified before being allowed since it's quite possible they are being misused, invented or exaggerated. Grace88 00:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

note: almost no other edits by nom DGG (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is well-sourced, and has already been verified as legit in previous discussions. Grace88 is clearly a neo-nazi (re: the "88", which is racist slang for "HH", aka "Heil Hitler"). This is yet another politically motivated attempt at an edit war from the anti-Wikis at the white power forum, Stormfront. Frank Pais 01:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not a vanity article, but rather an accurate description of an individual who is slandered by his enemies online. Radio broadcasts can be verified, as records are certainly kept at radio stations and there was obviously people there who operated the broadcast. As for the archive from MLPC, it's well recorded on the internet by media sources that Martinez took Marcell Rodden's place during the debate. Anyone who needs to verify the statement should contact MLPC, if that is so important. As for other sources not being online, if we could only use stuff published online, 80% of wikipedia articles would have to take out citations. Most academic sources don't have online copies. If you want to verify them, you go to a library. If you want to verify these sources, then do the work necessary. --Mista-X 01:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • That's bullshit Marcel. Grace88 01:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
What, exactly, is bullshit? --Mista-X 01:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There's nothing notable about the subject and calling someone a neo-nazi like this seems a blatant breach of any assumption of good faith. If you can back up that assertion Frank then do so but otherwise stick to the matter at hand. Was Charter 88 a Nazi front Frank? Martinez hasn't written notable books or written widely for major newspapers or magazines. Nick mallory 01:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I think testifying at the CHRT as an expert witness is considerably notable in the context of the work the subject has done. If he was just some run of the mill witness, then it would be different. But clearly the subject would be of interest in the subject of law and the study of hate groups. --Mista-X 01:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Since when is Granma International not a major newspaper? It's the national newspaper of Cuba, and has distribution throughout the world in over five languages. Grace88 is clearly a neo-nazi, especially given that his first edit was to the Marc Lemire (a neo-nazi) article in a favourable manner, and then in a derogatory manner to the article of an anti-fascist (Shane Ruttle Martinez).UnionPride 02:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Article asserts notability and is well sourced from reliable sources. Bordering on calling this a bad faith nom. Dbromage [Talk] 01:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - As per my above comments and the comments from Dbromage [Talk] --Mista-X 01:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, obvious bad faith nom, passes WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N, etc. Can't be speedy kept as one person has voted delete. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 01:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Unfortunate about the speedy, since the nominator has now been blocked for vandalism of the article. Dbromage [Talk] 01:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, obvious bad faith nom, passes WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N, etc. This issue has already been dealt with in the past - this is clearly trouble-making by those who have an alternate agenda.Frank Pais 01:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as the article is well sourced and is about an important individual in a specific subgroup. AnnieHall 01:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, passes notability criteria. Nomination in bad faith. --Dhartung | Talk 02:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I wouldn't say it was nominated in bad faith - it just seems like Grace88 isn't aware of the notability criteria - which to some extent it to be expected of a new user. This article should clearly be kept - it is notable and sourced accurately.--danielfolsom 04:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, but as "88" is code for "Heil Hitler" and since the subject of the article is known for his activism against neo-Nazis and other racists I'm inclined to be suspicious. AnnieHall 08:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep and close, this is a clear-cut case of a bad faith nomination. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Regardless of the faith of the nomination, the article's sourced, verifiable, and notable. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 09:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, apparent bad faith nomination. Burntsauce 18:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
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.