Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.T. Ready


 * 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. There is a very clear consensus that the subject meets our notability guidelines. TerriersFan (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

J.T. Ready

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Not notable per WP:CRIMINAL. West Eddy (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Notable. He's referenced a lot in Russell Pearce and is profiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center [|(here)]. --Kynn (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep (from article creator) - Ready was notable before his recent crimes. Here he is being covered by an article from the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2008. Talking Points Memo covered him twice this year, such as here. Google news archives (i.e., not covering today's events) brings up plenty of articles (as well as misleads), including national coverage, even foreign language coverage. NPR, NY Daily News. And because he's getting coverage for different reasons (militia, running for office, and now his crimes), it does not subsume easily into any existing article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think the sources amount to much in the way of significant coverage in the sources that are reliable per WP:GNG and Ready fails WP:CRIMINAL. Hekerui (talk) 11:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here he is getting coverage in Israel. This AP story -he's the man in the title - was also up at ABC.com, although the link is now dead. Here he's coveried in Mexico. It's hard to see how the AP, Fox, NY Daily News, and the numerous Arizona-specific papers don't qualify as reliable, secondary, and independent of the subject; how stories with him as the headline or featured character don't qualify as significant, so WP:GNG seems to be met. All of those sources are before the current crime situation; he would've qualified for an article last week, so WP:CRIMINAL seem irrelevant; it's a guideline for those whose notability is their crimes, not eliminate the otherwise notable because of their crimes. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep National coverage today, including on Democracy Now. User: ChocolateBlender


 * KeepIn addition to his crimes, he was a candidate for public office. --Lacarids (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * KeepIf Antoine Dodson gets an article, J.T. Ready should as well. B-Machine (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:GNG met.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The apparent crime here, while horrific, is all too common. The notoriety he is receiving is clearly due to his past activities, not just today's murders.  Indeed there was a period today when it was not clear if he was a victim or the perpetrator and yet it was his death that was highlighted in the news coverage, e.g. "Neo-Nazi among 5 dead in Arizona shooting" on Fox. --agr (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep More than a criminal. Nationally known prior to shooting. Founder of U.S. Border Guard (a right wing militia group). Candidate for public office. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep gNews archives show significant coverage of subject prior to the current events. Article needs time to be developed. vulture19 17:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Speedy! Why? Normally I keep everyone in the list. But let's face it: Wikipedia must never be a platform for such racist people. He is was a four time muderer, nothing else. If this is a reason for notability, at least the link to this Border Guard should be deleted. Wikipedia should not link to pages forgetting about the criminal's victims. royalrec 20:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment "Wikipedia must never be a platform for such racist people" is not a reason for deletion, and concern for the victims being forgotten or not forgotten is actually not relevant -- I don't mean to sound cold nor do I wish to disrespect the victims. It's a horrible crime, but this is an encyclopedia. List actual Wiki policies and guidelines to build your case for deletion. At this point, I'm neutral in this: I don't think this should be speedy deleted and the discussion should carry on for the full seven days.  freshacconci  talk talk  00:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * keep. he was notable before this incident. Founder of the U.S. Border Guard, ally of Russell Pearce...,, , . etc
 * Delete. I'm seeing cases of RECENTISM, NOTNEWS, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, NOTINHERITED, and a misread of POLITICIAN.  The question that needs to be asked is: what is notable in the coverage? Ready as a person, the activities of an organization he founded, or the neo-Nazi beliefs he held?  I'm not necessarily seeing that separation.  If Ready is mentioned as an aside in an article about Border Patrol, that is not "non-trivial" coverage.  The latter we can talk about; Ready's direct actions therein, I don't think so, because there's nothing in there on what he specifically did.  He was a candidate for an office; that does not confer notability, especially if the political coverage in the papers were predicated on the whole "neo-Nazi" thing (which, BTW, is why Israel had coverage of this).  A candidate is notable only if they win a major office, and that is why we do not have articles on every county sheriff in the United States, as there at least 5000 of them at a low estimate.  An individual does not inherit notability from being associated with other people or being referenced in articles like Pearce's. An individual is not notable only for having a political viewpoint of any kind.  I also don't see a real notability for CRIME here, and "we have X, so we should have Y" doesn't work.  I frankly see no reason why the necessary information on the individual or his activities could not be put into a paragraph in Border Patrol (or any other related article), but I don't see enough here to merit a BIO article that would not be largely "one event"-centric on the crime. MSJapan (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's hard to consider that Ready is being mention as an aside in things like the AP story, where most of the sentences contain a reference to him. He's not mention as an aside in the SPLC piece. A candidate is not only notable if they win a major office, as per WP:POLITICIAN: such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." I see no exception in that for neo-nazis. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, SPLC is not a reliable source but an advocacy group so one could use it as a primary source. Hekerui (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a false assumption there - that an advocacy group cannot publish a reliable source. There is nothing in the WP:RS guidelines that states that. It does require a reputation for accuracy, which the Intelligence Report does have. The question of whether the SPLC publishes reliable sources has come up multiple times at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard; you can see one such example here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Met notability guideline prior to the shooting, having been featured regularly in the state media and occasionally in national press. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Keep." I read the Washington Post story and clicked through to the Wikipedia article. Seeing the man's prominence in an issue of high national interest I was surprised to see the article tagged for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.48.220 (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep. There should be no censorship. Everyone needs access to this info. Of course some want this deleted. The heck with them, what does free speech stand for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.93.34 (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of significant coverage by third-party reliable sources and was notable before the shooting rampage. For example, here's an full article about the topic from a national news organization: Man with Neo-Nazi Ties Leading Patrols in Arizona.  Nominator should be reminded of WP:BEFORE which requires editors complete basic due diligence before nominating an article for deletion.  If this is an ongoing problem with the nominator, they should be topic-banned from nominating articles for deletion.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * KEEP. From a purely practical standpoint, I recently searched specifically for this bio and was  surprised to find it flagged for deletion.  His significance and notability come from his associations, views, acts, and political activities, and the importance being placed on these aforementioned by competing political groups -- as well as his criminal acts. The importance of his bio being included parallel those of Willy Horton or Vietnam swift boats in educating the general public on the back story of current political discourse.
 * Keep Ready's action were notably notorious, like Charles Manson's actions Rob (talk)
 * 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.