1415:. It's less breaking a 'color bar', more being interested in a specific field and putting in the effort to complete a PhD. It's an issue of systemic bias, not racism (anymore). Especially in CS (moreso than other STEM fields), there's also an economic component. A PhD can take 5-7 years living with little money, while every CS can get the top-paying jobs for new college grads, and by getting the work experience instead, not only will they have made on average $ 250,000-$ 350,000 more during those years, their work experience can be more valuable than a PhD. No disrespect intended towards any participants here who completed the gauntlet, but while in other science fields (i.e. Chemistry, Physics) students are expected far more often to take their education to the master's/doctorate level, CS students have much lower rates of continuing to the PhD. ―
723:"African-American computer scientists"). The low representation of women in computer science is also well known, problematic, and easily sourced. But it's not clear to me that when we start intersecting categories like this, that we still have notability: what are the issues that specifically affect African-American men in computer science, but are not common to African-American men in other STEM fields, or to other African-American computer scientists? And where do we list the computer scientists who don't identify as part of the traditional gender scale (if any of those happen also to be African-American)? Additionally, with many unsourced redlinked and unlinked entries (and many more people that could be added), we have issues with
688:, coming up next Friday. Also, I don't understand why you think a computer science professor would be an unreliable source for names of other colleagues in the field. This is a pretty small group of people, most of whom would know each other, and most of whom would only be documented in this fashion. We're not talking about writing individual articles for all of the people on the list, we're talking about a baseline list that gives us something to build on for an underrepresented group, for whom few sources are available. Please note that it is sufficiently rare for African American women to receive doctorates in computer science that we were urged to further develop this topic at an editathon oh the
881:. Further, the nominator states "An argument could be made for an article to generally discuss the underrepresentation of African-Americans in the Computer Sciences Industries". While this isn't the end of that process, it is a part of that and a list often serves as the backbone for creating relevant articles around a topic. Some of these names may lead to future biographical articles (not, I repeat, that that is necessary under Knowledge policy). I would say that extends the "has potential" argument from just the two lists under discussion to the entire topic group that may, potentially, exist one day. -
550:, and while I understand African American's are a minority, that does not somehow make them anymore notable than the majority population. In the same regard that it's not appropriate to assume white people are more notable for being a majority, it's not appropriate to assume black people are more notable because they are a minority. So, if we keep this article, than the counterpart article for every race/demographic would also be appropriate, imagine the list of all those people with PhD's!!! I also would like to point out that the creator of these articles included themselves on the list at
1440:
important issue. Could you suggest (and actually contribute to) good approaches for dealing with these real and important issues, since these two lists are clearly bad approaches? If the list is moved to project space, would you still argue that it should be deleted or would you let the community determine which people on the list are indeed notable? Being the first black graduate from a historically segregated university or an advocate for fellow female computer scientists could attract additional coverage, which increases notability. --
1305:. The goal for creating the pages was not to be a list for the sake of creating a list but to be an article/list about individual African Americans in Computer Science, per se but on the group as a collective. Thus, it is the grouping of the members in the broader context that is notable. The purpose creating separate pages was to have the women's list include mention of intersectionality and issues that are unique to individuals who are women in a male dominated field and African Americans. There are numerous articles on the topic
919:
hope I have demonstrated. I have no opinion on merging the lists. I don't think unlinked names should be removed: it is not required at all under
Knowledge policy, it would be counter-productive to just eliminate the seeds of potential future articles, and it is unnecessary given the apparently small number of African-Americans with CS doctorates in the US. -
1199:, I would be glad to change my position. As mentioned, blue linked articles grouped by occupation (and/or ethnicity) are generally acceptable, but blanket lists of non-notable people are not, and that is what we have here. Also worthy of note, the deletion of these versions of the article does not prelude their recreation according to Knowledge standards. --
326:. An argument could be made for an article to generally discuss the underrepresentation of African-Americans in the Computer Sciences Industries, but a blanket list of those who have achieved a Ph.D. in that field is not the way to go about it. Further, there are some BLP issues, as these are effectively unsourced or poorly sourced lists of people.
1354:
from
Wikipedians or reliable sources that are difficult to access. Perhaps two lists in mainspace is not the best way to deal with this important issue (unequal opportunities and imbalanced coverage), but until a better alternative is developed, deleting the lists will just reinforce racism and sexism, both on Knowledge and in STEM. --
1195:, and without looking for statistics, I am sure you are correct, computer scientists and academics are underrepresented occupations on Knowledge. Naturally these sorts of lists can be included within Knowledge, and if you, or someone else cares to work these lists into a decent article that meets the
653:
Glad you are finding more recent information! If you can find a current source with listings and exact numbers of
African American CS PhDs, that would certainly be a help in improving the page. Do note that people attending an editathon have to work with what they have access to on the spot, and rely
1615:
African
American computer scientists (even without the qualifier of earning a PhD), also no prejudice against moving this to the project page for a major overhaul and a better approach to discussing these important topics. As it is though, this article does not meet the criteria for inclusion, in my
1610:
My feeling here is that all of your arguments would be excellent arguments for an article specifically discussing the general topic of
African Americans in CS, such an article could discuss the biases and so forth, but it still doesn't make any sense to have a huge list of mostly non-notable people.
1157:
Thanks for assuming bad faith of everyone who voted delete, before you start accusing everyone of being racist, it would be nice if you did your homework, as others have pointed out, those lists are made up of notable individuals, whereas this is just a list of people with degrees, which means what?
620:
This list is based in part on a list compiled by Dr. Scott
Williams, Professor of Mathematics at State University of New York at Buffalo: "Computer Scientists of the African Diaspora". SUNY Buffalo - Mathematicians of the African Diaspora. 2008. Retrieved 2015-02-25. As of 2008, Dr. Scott considered
582:
African
Americans in computer science. But a list of EVERY African American who has ever received a PhD in the field seems a little silly, like I said, they could earn a degree in that field and then not contribute a thing to the field afterword. The inclusion of EVERY African American with a PhD is
1591:
reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."), African
American women in CS have been written about in reliable sources and the issue is easily verifiable. The sources are secondary, e.g. National Academies, and independent.
1372:
This would be appropriate if it was plausible to believe that most or many of the names would meet
Knowledge's notability guidelines. On the contrary, the vast majority of PhD holders do not meet wikipedia's notability guidelines. Deleting non-notable entries in a list doesn't reinforce racism or
1140:
A list of
African-American computer scientists would be appropriate if the list was made up of African-American computer scientists who had Knowledge articles, as has been the standard for our lists of people articles for years. A list of people who do not have Knowledge articles is inappropriate,
903:
requires, which is that reliable sources have actually written about African American PhDs in CS as such. Are there sources for that? I've read plenty of articles about underrepresentation of various groups in CS. But none that tried to give a list of PhDs. CS is a field in which having a PhD isn't
657:
Also, the fact that you do not realize why the first African American PhD, or the number of African Americans in a profession is particularly significant is actually an encouraging sign. African Americans in the US were specifically barred from certain higher educational institutions, and thus from
461:
Thanks for the heads up on the signature. Happy to sign anything. A few random examples: Monica Lam and Andrew Chi-Chih Yao are no more 'notable' than a lot of computer scientists I know. Your generalization, without evidence or context, is at the heart of this issue. Factually answer why this list
577:
I never said it was a problem, I was merely pointing out a possible conflict of interest, Knowledge policy doesn't forbid someone with a COI from editing a topic, it is simply discouraged, and will be met with a higher level of scrutiny, so these editors should edit extremely prudently. That being
495:, the definitive textbook on what is arguably the definitive tool of computer programming? Please. If any of the people on this list have won either of those prizes, or co-written one of the definitive works used by basically all CS students, then they should definitely have articles. Have they? --
443:
There is a HUGE difference, including the fact that the list of computer scientists you mention is a list of NOTABLE scientists with articles about them, not a collection of scientists who are not yet notable but happen to share traits defined by the author of the list. Also, I note your unsigned
1590:
There are quite a few issues raised in these discussions however the page has been updated to include references related to African American women in CS. The topic of African American Women in Computer Science is a notable topic. As listed in the ("If a topic has received significant coverage in
1439:
Racism and sexism have not magically disappeared. Poor black and female representation in computer science is a real and important issue. Black and female contributions to computer science is a real and important issue. Barriers that black people and females face in computer science is a real and
1353:
as someone mentioned that the lists were created due to an event about our coverage of racial minorities and women in STEM. The argument for deletion is that the black people on the lists are not notable. Some may be notable, but do not have articles due to systemic bias, such as limited interest
1176:
You’re certainly welcome to your opinion! I'm not asserting that anyone is acting in bad faith, much less that they are racist; I'm reminding people that the optics here are awkward at best. In point of fact, our coverage of baseball coaches and pornographic actors is really unequalled, where our
918:
I've added some references to show that this is a subject of discussion. I don't have time to do an exhaustive search for more citations but I think this is ample to show that they exist. Wiki articles don't need to be perfect right away, they just need potential for future improvement, which I
624:
This is a personal website, not a reliable source. Also, it's talking about the African Diaspora, not African Americans. Lastly, if it remains, there's plenty of names to add, begging the question of reliability for his website and the other source about the number in academia, so I'll just leave
1564:
And by your example, you prove our point. The list you linked to is a list of Medal of Honor Recipients, notable by their accomplishments by definition; compiling a list of inherently notable people is wonderful! Establish notability of these subjects, create their articles, and THEN we make a
810:
to cover this list. As sources we have one survey that lists tenure-track professors (which is not the same as PhD in CS; there are plenty of CS PhDs that aren't professors), and one personal web page, that lists "The African Diaspora" (which is not the same as African-Americans - for example it
662:
in the US. Other minorities did not always face the same levels of discrimination as African Americans. For people of a certain age in the US, it goes without saying that the moment when an educational institution or a profession actually opens up for everyone to participate is when the African
876:
is that notability applies to the list as a whole, not the individual entries. So the notability, or lack thereof, of any of these people on either list is not relevant; which negates many of the deletion arguments made here. I can't see how BLP applies to a simple list of names; they aren't
722:
into a single list of African-American computer scientists, and delete all non-bluelinked entries. The low representation of African-Americans in computer science is well-known, problematic, and not likely to be difficult to find sources for (e.g. Google gives me 100k hits for the exact phrase
52:. Arguments to delete based on redlinks don't really address NLIST but we clearly cannot have a directory masquerading as a list either. So I'm moving both lists to draft space for someone to fix up into a single sourced list of notable people that can be moved back into mainspace.
965:
that annually report data on the topic of these pages. These can easily be added to the pages as sources. It's also worth noting that until recently, when tech companies began reporting demographic data, there was little public discussion of the lack of minority presence in CS see
545:
for deletion shortly after it was created, but with no apparent precendent on this type of page, I wasn't sure it was appropriate and decided to do nothing instead. However, my original concern (and my reason for !voting delete) is that we would never have an article called
462:
is not notable in comparison to all the other lists that myself other commenters have mentioned. I challenge you to Google a random sample of 20 from each of these pages and do the same for the other lists mentioned and do a 'notability' comparison on the facts. --
1265:. Aunt Minnie didn't. Tell me who gets an article. Thus it is that Black porno 'actors' have articles, and black PhDs in computer science don't. Then again neither did my beloved black history professor (also a PhD). Knowledge articles are not a meritocracy.
1125:
All those are lists of people with Knowledge entries in their own right, instead of claiming that merely being an AA computer scientist is worthy of mention. No objection to having a list of African American computer scientists that are individually notable.
854:
as nominated. Whether an individual is notable or not is not based on ethnicity; notability must be asserted through Knowledge guidelines for each individual on the list FIRST, then a list should be derived from the articles of notable individuals.
283:
220:
321:
are lists of non-notable people, on this list because they have achieved a Ph.D. While that is no small undertaking, particularly in an underrepresented demographic in the computer science industry, that does not equate to Knowledge
877:
biographies and contain no potentially libelous information. The topic is one that has plausibly been discussed as a group in reliable sources. Whatever technical flaws that remain with the lists are fixable over time: the lists
685:
1219:
myself right in the face, after re-reading your initial statement, and your follow up explanation, I was clearly the one jumping to conclusions and assuming bad faith on your part. I focused too much on the word
1261:. He said, "My Aunt Minnie would always be punctual and never hold up production, but who would pay to see my Aunt Minnie?" He was comparing Ms. Monroe to his wonderful, virtuous Aunt Minnie. Marilyn Monroe had
338:
1470:
Of course, Knowledge is not in a position to improve black and female representation in computer science, but we certainly can (and should) improve our coverage of these real and important issues. --
146:
141:
277:
150:
578:
said, my issue with this article is still that it is a list of non-notable people. Whereas an article discussing African Americans role in computer science would be acceptable, as would a list of
214:
87:
82:
692:
Although we all hope that the day will come when an African American getting a PhD in computer science is an everyday occurence, even in 2013 a women were still in the process of breaking the
133:
91:
1177:
coverage of scientists and engineers is less so; it might be a good idea to spend some time with this list to ensure that every redlink figure on the list really ought to be. Just saying....
1529:
Listing of prominent African Americans in computer science. Notable list of academics of an under represented group an a tough underreprented field of phds. Similiar fields exist including
1158:
I can get a PhD in computer science and then decide to do absolutely nothing with it, does that make me notable? There is a reason this list was nominated and not those others, I think your
1545:
But there's a world of difference between the two lists. Is it really necessary to point out that the mere possession of a PhD does not make one either an academic or a computer scientist?
1320:. Furthermore the National Science Foundation publishes a report focused on Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering that includes data on minority women
74:
1224:
and thought you were saying this was only nominated as a racial prejudice. My sincere apologies, I tend to do stupid things frequently, Knowledge can be a humbling experience at times. -
1705:
in this form but allow userfication to merge and limit to notable people. As it is, this is merely a directory of living but not notable people, with very dubious sourcing in terms of
731:. Incidentally, these lists are currently far from complete: several additional names can be found by searching Knowledge for the phrases "African-American" and "computer scientist". —
378:
749:
From what I've read in the literature, the big issue that specifically affects African-American men in computer science is lack of access to computers before entering college. --
836:
While a PhD is highly significant especially in computer science where such a degree is not needed to work in the field, still education in itself isn't notable per Knowledge.(
937:. Nevertheless, there are several publications that make a point of Computer Science PhD's and African-Americans; which is enough to support my point. There's another at
705:
I would hope that Knowledge would view breaking the color barrier as a notable activity, because if we don't, it doesn't speak very well for our commitment to diversity. --
1009:
358:
173:
114:
1049:
I agree with David Eppstein's solution, which I feel is in line with the people lists Knowledge already has, and have changed my delete both vote above accordingly. ―
180:
121:
938:
806:, per nominator's points. Most importantly, I do not think the article has shown that merely being an African American with a PhD in CS is notable enough for other
137:
1390:
Amazing that so many argue that breaking the color bar is not a notable activity. We need some explicit changes to policy on this. Where do we propose them? --
492:
1080:
967:
1315:
551:
542:
318:
298:
129:
265:
235:
202:
941:. A table of Africa-American PhD's vs. overall award for the year could probably be built using the NSF data and would be relevant to the topic. -
1331:, " Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable..." The articles have potential
1721:
1697:
1667:
1646:
1637:
Mostly unsourced, poorly defined criteria for inclusion and essentially a listing of non-notable people that is little more than a directory.
1625:
1600:
1574:
1556:
1540:
1509:
1495:
1479:
1465:
1449:
1427:
1399:
1385:
1363:
1344:
1287:
1274:
1233:
1203:
1186:
1171:
1145:
1135:
1112:
1096:
1061:
1035:
1021:
999:
950:
928:
913:
890:
864:
845:
828:
798:
779:
758:
740:
714:
672:
644:
600:
563:
533:
504:
471:
453:
414:
390:
370:
350:
330:
56:
1312:
259:
196:
1314:
that are focused on the topic intersectionality and women of color in STEM as well as those that highlight the issue in Computer Science
255:
1693:
1141:
regardless of ethnicity and/or PhD status. I am not sure what you are suggesting by saying it is interesting we are starting here.--
192:
1283:
into a joint African-American computer scientist article per David Eppstein. The gender separation makes little sense in this case.
427:
78:
1076:
1026:
Only includes those that have individual notability, instead of just claiming that being an AA inventor or scientist is enough. --
547:
305:
1454:
When did it become part of Knowledge's brief to deal with whatever biases may or may not exist in the field of computer science?
1072:
431:
242:
17:
314:
70:
62:
1318:
1196:
975:
1302:
689:
1684:
1327:. The page does need to be updated to reflect the importance and unique experiences of African American Women in CS. Per
1303:
Lost History of African Americans in STEM fields with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Tue Feb 24.
690:
Lost History of African Americans in STEM fields with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Tue Feb 24.
1484:
But this isn't an article about those issues, it's simply a list of largely non-notable people who happen to have a PhD.
271:
812:
402:
208:
1373:
sexism. When the articles are finally created, I'm sure the authors (or someone else) will add them to the list. ―
816:
807:
1740:
841:
520:
The article is essentially a regurgitation of the list from Reference #1. At most reference #1 could be noted in
40:
1530:
1253:@MarkBernstein: Your initial argument is an "Aunt Minnie Argument," courtesy of the great Jewish film director,
736:
724:
617:
Almost all use none at all, self-published, or otherwise questionable sources. One heavily used source reads:
1654:
List of people who don't meet WP's notability guidelines. Vast majority would be deleted from the list per
1182:
1092:
1017:
995:
628:
405:. If these lists are deleted then we should start the process of removing ALL similar lists on Knowledge. --
1621:
1596:
1551:
1536:
1490:
1475:
1460:
1445:
1359:
1340:
1229:
1167:
1107:
793:
728:
596:
559:
1736:
1642:
1570:
946:
924:
886:
860:
811:
lists at least one Nigerian). And we have the personal say so of a volunteer. So basically this list is
467:
449:
423:
410:
36:
463:
419:
406:
1655:
837:
775:
621:
his list to be a complete list of all the known African Americans holding PhDs in computer science.
1216:
732:
291:
228:
1659:
1266:
525:
1423:
1395:
1381:
1284:
1210:
1192:
1178:
1152:
1088:
1057:
1013:
991:
754:
710:
693:
668:
640:
444:
contribution is one of only two edits you have made, both contesting deletion of these articles.
1663:
1617:
1592:
1546:
1532:
1485:
1471:
1455:
1441:
1355:
1336:
1309:
1270:
1225:
1163:
1102:
788:
592:
555:
529:
386:
366:
346:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1735:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1311:. The National Academies Press published a report on the topic of Women of Color in Academia
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1638:
1566:
1505:
1332:
1306:
1131:
1031:
971:
942:
920:
909:
882:
878:
856:
824:
500:
445:
516:
Not enough reliable 2nd or 3rd party sources to justify all the people on this list. Fails
1328:
1298:
1200:
1142:
900:
873:
771:
588:
584:
327:
1321:
962:
1712:
1676:
1258:
697:
521:
1706:
1434:
1417:
1412:
1406:
1391:
1375:
1301:- As noted previously, this page was created as part of the White House Edit-a-thon
1051:
934:
750:
706:
664:
634:
696:
when the first African American woman received CS PhD at an institution the size of
1254:
626:
484:
382:
362:
342:
53:
167:
108:
1501:
1262:
1127:
1027:
905:
820:
659:
517:
496:
480:
323:
488:
476:
1101:
That there are other rubbish articles is no reason to add to the collection.
1680:
630:
787:
this ridiculous list of people who don't meet WP's notability guidelines.
686:
Knowledge:Meetup/DC/Tech LadyMafia Edit-a-thon, April 2015: Women in Tech
1565:
list. Easy, peasy. Otherwise, it's just a list of non-notable people.
1324:
587:, if the list was made up of all notable folks, it would easily pass
958:
933:...and now some of them have been removed for spurious reasons by
700:. Fifty-six practitioners in a field as of 2008 is not very many!
1729:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
339:
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions
1071:
It appears that we have African-American Baseball Coaches,
654:
on others to improve what they have started afterwards.
163:
159:
155:
104:
100:
96:
1008:
I would support a merge, too, per David Eppstein. See
554:, one Quincy K. Brown. So there are also COI issues. -
290:
227:
819:
that make such a list, and I'll change my opinion. --
379:
list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions
899:Right, but right now the article doesn't show what
1010:List of African-American inventors and scientists
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1743:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1500:No objection to moving list to project space.--
572:(See below). The page was created as a part of
1323:. The data on the pages can be gathered using
359:list of Computing-related deletion discussions
1162:comment says more about you than any of us. -
615:Merge and clean per David Eppstein's solution
304:
241:
8:
548:Caucasian American women in computer science
493:Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools
377:Note: This debate has been included in the
357:Note: This debate has been included in the
337:Note: This debate has been included in the
1215:Mark, I should apologize, I obviously just
1081:List Of Jewish-American computer scientists
957:There are several data sources such as the
552:African American women in computer science
543:African American women in computer science
376:
356:
336:
319:African American women in computer science
130:African American women in computer science
904:nearly as important as in some others. --
583:exactly what causes this article to fail
524:, which FWIW, is not very well written.
315:African american men in computer science
71:African american men in computer science
63:African american men in computer science
978:for very recent articles on the topic.
1087:that we’re starting here, isn’t it?
990:per LISTN and what AdamBMorgan said.
7:
1077:African-American Pornographic Actors
487:, the "Nobel Prize of computing"?
24:
1675:As per usual criteria for lists,
541:I actually considered nominating
1191:Thank you for the clarification
1611:No prejudice against a list of
403:The List of Computer Scientists
401:This list is no different from
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
682:Strong Keep for Upcoming Event
1:
813:Knowledge:Original research
1760:
1722:19:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
1698:15:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
1679:them all. Then delete all
1668:06:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
1647:02:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
1626:04:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
1601:21:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
1575:16:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
1557:16:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
1541:15:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
1510:18:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
1496:17:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
1480:17:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
1466:16:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
1450:16:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
1428:14:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
1400:12:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
1386:02:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
1364:01:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
1345:00:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
1288:22:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
1275:09:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
1234:06:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
1204:23:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
1187:23:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
1172:23:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
1146:21:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
1136:18:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
1113:18:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
1097:18:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
1062:17:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
1036:18:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
1022:17:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
1012:(includes men and women).
1000:17:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
951:14:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
929:14:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
914:18:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
891:16:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
865:15:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
846:14:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
829:14:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
817:Knowledge:Reliable sources
808:Knowledge:Reliable sources
799:12:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
780:11:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
759:23:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
741:05:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
715:03:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
673:04:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
663:Americans are welcomed. --
658:certain professions under
645:15:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
601:04:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
505:01:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
472:01:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
454:21:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
415:01:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
57:21:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
564:04:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
534:21:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
391:15:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
371:15:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
351:15:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
331:13:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
1732:Please do not modify it.
1073:African American Writers
32:Please do not modify it.
1335:and can be improved. I
815:. Give two articles in
479:? Who won not only the
317:, and it's counterpart
623:
1351:Move to project space
684:. This is needed for
618:
432:few or no other edits
770:both non-notable. --
434:outside this topic.
1325:national databases
939:insidehighered.com
625:these lists here:
1720:
725:WP:INDISCRIMINATE
435:
393:
373:
353:
1751:
1734:
1719:
1717:
1710:
1554:
1549:
1493:
1488:
1463:
1458:
1438:
1426:
1420:
1410:
1384:
1378:
1214:
1156:
1110:
1105:
1060:
1054:
796:
791:
643:
637:
574:
573:
417:
309:
308:
294:
246:
245:
231:
183:
171:
153:
124:
112:
94:
34:
1759:
1758:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1747:
1741:deletion review
1730:
1713:
1711:
1689:
1552:
1547:
1491:
1486:
1461:
1456:
1432:
1418:
1416:
1404:
1376:
1374:
1208:
1197:Heyman Standard
1150:
1108:
1103:
1052:
1050:
838:Littleolive oil
794:
789:
729:WP:NOTDIRECTORY
635:
633:
491:, co-author of
251:
188:
179:
144:
128:
120:
85:
69:
66:
50:Prune and merge
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1757:
1755:
1746:
1745:
1725:
1724:
1700:
1685:
1670:
1649:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1605:
1604:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1559:
1527:Merge and Keep
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1367:
1366:
1348:
1291:
1290:
1259:Marilyn Monroe
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1065:
1064:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1003:
1002:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
959:Taulbee Report
955:
954:
953:
894:
893:
879:have potential
872:My reading of
867:
849:
831:
801:
782:
764:
763:
762:
761:
744:
743:
733:David Eppstein
720:Keep but merge
717:
702:
701:
698:Michigan State
678:
677:
676:
675:
655:
648:
647:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
567:
566:
536:
522:Digital divide
510:
509:
508:
507:
456:
437:
436:
395:
394:
374:
354:
312:
311:
248:
185:
126:
65:
60:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1756:
1744:
1742:
1738:
1733:
1727:
1726:
1723:
1718:
1716:
1708:
1704:
1701:
1699:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1690:
1688:
1682:
1678:
1674:
1671:
1669:
1665:
1661:
1657:
1656:WP:LISTPEOPLE
1653:
1650:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1636:
1633:
1632:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1614:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1602:
1598:
1594:
1589:
1586:
1585:
1576:
1572:
1568:
1563:
1560:
1558:
1555:
1550:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1538:
1534:
1531:
1528:
1525:
1511:
1507:
1503:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1494:
1489:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1464:
1459:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1436:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1414:
1408:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1383:
1379:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1352:
1349:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1319:
1316:
1313:
1310:
1307:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1293:
1292:
1289:
1286:
1282:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1257:--concerning
1256:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1218:
1212:
1211:MarkBernstein
1207:
1206:
1205:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1179:MarkBernstein
1175:
1174:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1154:
1153:MarkBernstein
1149:
1148:
1147:
1144:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1114:
1111:
1106:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1089:MarkBernstein
1086:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1067:
1066:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1048:
1045:
1044:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1014:Lightbreather
1011:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1001:
997:
993:
992:Lightbreather
989:
986:
985:
977:
973:
969:
964:
960:
956:
952:
948:
944:
940:
936:
932:
931:
930:
926:
922:
917:
916:
915:
911:
907:
902:
898:
897:
896:
895:
892:
888:
884:
880:
875:
871:
868:
866:
862:
858:
853:
850:
847:
843:
839:
835:
832:
830:
826:
822:
818:
814:
809:
805:
802:
800:
797:
792:
786:
783:
781:
777:
773:
769:
766:
765:
760:
756:
752:
748:
747:
746:
745:
742:
738:
734:
730:
726:
721:
718:
716:
712:
708:
704:
703:
699:
695:
694:color barrier
691:
687:
683:
680:
679:
674:
670:
666:
661:
656:
652:
651:
650:
649:
646:
642:
638:
631:
629:
627:
622:
616:
614:
610:
609:
602:
598:
594:
590:
586:
581:
576:
575:
571:
570:
569:
568:
565:
561:
557:
553:
549:
544:
540:
537:
535:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
512:
511:
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
475:
474:
473:
469:
465:
460:
457:
455:
451:
447:
442:
439:
438:
433:
429:
425:
421:
416:
412:
408:
404:
400:
397:
396:
392:
388:
384:
380:
375:
372:
368:
364:
360:
355:
352:
348:
344:
340:
335:
334:
333:
332:
329:
325:
320:
316:
307:
303:
300:
297:
293:
289:
285:
282:
279:
276:
273:
270:
267:
264:
261:
257:
254:
253:Find sources:
249:
244:
240:
237:
234:
230:
226:
222:
219:
216:
213:
210:
207:
204:
201:
198:
194:
191:
190:Find sources:
186:
182:
178:
175:
169:
165:
161:
157:
152:
148:
143:
139:
135:
131:
127:
123:
119:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1731:
1728:
1714:
1702:
1692:
1691:
1686:
1672:
1651:
1634:
1618:War wizard90
1612:
1603:quincykbrown
1593:Quincykbrown
1587:
1561:
1533:CrazyAces489
1526:
1472:Hildanknight
1442:Hildanknight
1356:Hildanknight
1350:
1347:quincykbrown
1337:Quincykbrown
1294:
1280:
1255:Billy Wilder
1252:
1226:War wizard90
1221:
1164:War wizard90
1159:
1084:
1068:
1046:
987:
869:
851:
833:
803:
784:
767:
719:
681:
619:
612:
611:
593:War wizard90
579:
556:War wizard90
538:
513:
485:Turing Award
458:
440:
398:
313:
301:
295:
287:
280:
274:
268:
262:
252:
238:
232:
224:
217:
211:
205:
199:
189:
176:
117:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1683:. Simples.
1639:Niteshift36
1567:ScrapIronIV
1222:interesting
1217:boomeranged
1160:interesting
1085:interesting
943:AdamBMorgan
921:AdamBMorgan
883:AdamBMorgan
857:ScrapIronIV
660:segregation
613:Delete Both
539:Delete Both
481:Knuth Prize
464:Tygrandison
446:ScrapIronIV
430:) has made
420:Tygrandison
407:Tygrandison
278:free images
215:free images
1715:Sandstein
1616:opinion. -
1201:kelapstick
1143:kelapstick
1079:. We have
772:Harizotoh9
489:Monica Lam
483:, but the
477:Andrew Yao
328:kelapstick
324:notability
1737:talk page
1681:red links
1333:WP:HASPOT
399:Keep BOTH
383:• Gene93k
363:• Gene93k
343:• Gene93k
37:talk page
1739:or in a
1435:Padenton
1419:Padenton
1407:Djembayz
1392:Djembayz
1377:Padenton
1329:WP:LISTN
1299:WP:LISTN
1053:Padenton
935:Padenton
901:WP:LISTN
874:WP:LISTN
751:Djembayz
707:Djembayz
665:Djembayz
636:Padenton
589:WP:LISTN
585:WP:LISTN
428:contribs
174:View log
115:View log
39:or in a
1687:Fortuna
1677:WP:LINK
1673:Comment
1660:Bgwhite
1635:Delete.
1613:notable
1588:Comment
1562:Comment
1553:Corbett
1492:Corbett
1462:Corbett
1267:Tapered
1109:Corbett
1083:. It’s
1069:Comment
1047:Comment
795:Corbett
580:notable
526:Tapered
459:Comment
441:Comment
284:WP refs
272:scholar
221:WP refs
209:scholar
147:protect
142:history
88:protect
83:history
54:Spartaz
1707:WP:BLP
1703:Delete
1652:Delete
1502:GRuban
1413:WP:VPP
1128:GRuban
1028:GRuban
974:, and
906:GRuban
852:Delete
834:Delete
821:GRuban
804:Delete
785:Delete
768:Delete
514:Delete
497:GRuban
256:Google
193:Google
151:delete
92:delete
1285:Peter
1281:Merge
299:JSTOR
260:books
236:JSTOR
197:books
181:Stats
168:views
160:watch
156:links
122:Stats
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
1664:talk
1643:talk
1622:talk
1597:talk
1571:talk
1548:Eric
1537:talk
1506:talk
1487:Eric
1476:talk
1457:Eric
1446:talk
1396:talk
1360:talk
1341:talk
1297:per
1295:Keep
1271:talk
1263:WP:N
1230:talk
1193:Mark
1183:talk
1168:talk
1132:talk
1104:Eric
1093:talk
1032:talk
1018:talk
996:talk
988:Keep
976:here
972:here
968:here
961:and
947:talk
925:talk
910:talk
887:talk
870:Keep
861:talk
842:talk
825:talk
790:Eric
776:talk
755:talk
737:talk
727:and
711:talk
669:talk
597:talk
560:talk
530:talk
518:WP:N
501:talk
468:talk
450:talk
424:talk
411:talk
387:talk
367:talk
347:talk
292:FENS
266:news
229:FENS
203:news
164:logs
138:talk
134:edit
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
1411:at
1075:,
963:NSF
591:. -
306:TWL
243:TWL
172:– (
113:– (
1709:.
1666:)
1658:.
1645:)
1624:)
1599:)
1573:)
1539:)
1508:)
1478:)
1448:)
1398:)
1362:)
1343:)
1317:,
1308:,
1273:)
1232:)
1185:)
1170:)
1134:)
1126:--
1095:)
1034:)
1020:)
998:)
970:,
949:)
927:)
912:)
889:)
863:)
844:)
827:)
778:)
757:)
739:)
713:)
671:)
599:)
562:)
532:)
503:)
470:)
452:)
426:•
418:—
413:)
389:)
381:.
369:)
361:.
349:)
341:.
286:)
223:)
166:|
162:|
158:|
154:|
149:|
145:|
140:|
136:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
1662:(
1641:(
1620:(
1595:(
1569:(
1535:(
1504:(
1474:(
1444:(
1437::
1433:@
1424:✉
1422:|
1409::
1405:@
1394:(
1382:✉
1380:|
1358:(
1339:(
1269:(
1228:(
1213::
1209:@
1181:(
1166:(
1155::
1151:@
1130:(
1091:(
1058:✉
1056:|
1030:(
1016:(
994:(
945:(
923:(
908:(
885:(
859:(
848:)
840:(
823:(
774:(
753:(
735:(
709:(
667:(
641:✉
639:|
632:―
595:(
558:(
528:(
499:(
466:(
448:(
422:(
409:(
385:(
365:(
345:(
310:)
302:·
296:·
288:·
281:·
275:·
269:·
263:·
258:(
250:(
247:)
239:·
233:·
225:·
218:·
212:·
206:·
200:·
195:(
187:(
184:)
177:·
170:)
132:(
125:)
118:·
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.