Knowledge:Articles for deletion/John Márquez (2nd nomination)

1074:

discussion, long before any rescue appeal was made, who voted Procedural Keep on all of your mass nominations); LuciferWildcat as article author; Unscintillating; and Northamerica1000. (Not sure how to count Dream Focus since they struck out their "keep" vote.) So are you contending that Unscintillating and Northamerica1000 only came to that discussion "with guns blazing" and voted "keep" because of a rescue appeal? I doubt if you have any evidence of that and I think you owe them an apology. I often see Unscintillating and Northamerica1000 participating in discussions here, and their opinions are considered and balanced. And anyhow that's not how ARS works; the idea is to improve the article, not to rush to the discussion and vote "keep!". As for people who are "involved with rescuing articles in some way", I will happily claim that description; I rescue a lot of articles and am proud of it (see my userpage). But I voted "weak delete" on that first discussion. I have changed to "weak keep" on this nomination because the article has been improved and has much better sourcing now. Please Assume Good Faith that we all base our opinions on the actual state of the article and what we can find about the subject in research - rather than some preconceived bias toward "keep". --

475:. The factors noted in the previous opinion do not appear to have resulted in any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the individual. It's true that the subject has been mentioned in numerous news stories, some in reliable sources, some even in reliable sources independent of the subject. But those are in stories that focus on other matters. Many of the articles are behind paywalls, so my review is certainly not comprehensive. But the snippets of paywalled articles, and the full-text of the free ones, all give rise to the same conclusion—this person hasn't been the subject of substantial coverage. Since it does not appear that the person meets any of the 2242:

we've deleted may under 600,000 -- and kept some also--this is an area where we are not particular consistent. I've always said for a person to be notable they have to be notable for something, and I don't think he is--every mention is trivial. Most of the additional ones are merely a list of who voted for what on a particular measure; I tend to take a very flexible view to what is significant coverage, but I have not yet found one that is significant coverage by even my standard. The solution to problems like this are local wikis. (Bongo asked me to come here, saying he pretty much knew what I'd say, and he's right: I do say this consistently about local politicians.)

2509:

want me to, & I think I've proved it many times. I don't deliberately go out of my way to be unpredictable, but I use my own standards for deciding what is appropriate to say. Therefore, I do not consider notifying me of a discussion as canvassing: if its a field I am interested in, I am likely to get there anyway--especially if it's about deletion; if it isn't something I'd otherwise pay attention to, I'll respond if I think it interesting or I have something I want to say. Canvassing is notifying multiple people known to be on the same side ,and Bongo did not do that.

826:

canvassing to any extent, you should get a better understanding of what canvassing is. Notifying the editors is actually usually the nominator's (your) job, should you choose to accept it, but someone else doing it is never canvassing. Canvassing is selectively notifying random people or people likely to support or oppose a deletion in order to pad your argument and weigh down the votes. As I support keeping and most of the people I notified decided they thought it should be deleted it is really an illogical and impossible determination that I could be canvassing in anyway.

2191: 944:" He didn't like the results last time, so wanted to try the AFD again. Doesn't matter its a different person nominating it. When something is kept, it shouldn't just keep being nominated every few months when nothing has changed, no matter who is doing it. And those who participated previously should be known about any reruns of course. Make more sense just to open the old AFD, so people wouldn't have to show up and repeat what they already said. 1158:

most cases. It may be a misconception on Lucifer's part, or on your part, or both, to think that a Rescue template means "come to this AfD discussion and vote keep!" It doesn't. It means "Consider improving this article!" and as such it can be added to any article. The Rescue Squadron folks may respond by trying to improve the article, or they may ignore it. I have never seen any evidence that they react to a template by simply voting "keep". --

1442:

community" or "incumbent" or similar descriptors. Even when mentioning legislation co-sponsored by him (local ordinances are not notable, by the way), the coverage never has provided any meaningful information about the individual—his background, his accomplishments, his politics, even—beyond the most basic coverage of his position. If there's any example of numerous coverage in numerous articles demonstrating non-notability, this is it.

52:. So, someone canvassed all of the editors who participated in the last AfD, and surprisingly we've ended up with the same result. Someone intelligent once said that "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results". I would strongly suggest that if this article is nominated for deletion again in the future, that the previous AfD participants are 2005:@Yaksar, BIO states that in cases where the coverage may not be significant but the mentions are numerous, that indeed they add up to significant, and it's pretty clear that this is the case for this gentleman. I would also note that nothing has been dumped here, they items were hand picked and quotes added, most sources are included in the article itself and their usage is self evident. 2334: 2161:

content in the article is not trivial, it may not be substantial coverage but the multiple independent sources combined seem to demonstrate notability here. This is a figure you would regularly read about in the paper and I feel there are more sources hidden in the pre-internet era and wikipedia is the only place we could really aggregate it all for the sake of history.

1711: 2312:". Generally, I view DGG as an encyclopedia builder—that is to say, and editor with a strong preference for the inclusion of encyclopedic content. Generally where we disagree is when I opine to delete and he opines to keep. If we have interacted on local politics before I do not recall the event or the outcome. 1892:

I'll need to look through them all when I'm somewhere with a stronger internet connection. But cherrypicking 3 random ones so far has not been promising. A one sentence mention of the subject is not at all significant coverage. It would help if you could specify which you consider to actually provide

1484:

If its "pretty clearly" the case you are a horrible advocate for your position. The honest truth is that Marquez appears to have gotten more coverage than the average city council member. City council members, at least of similar-sized cities, would usually would not meet WP:GNG. Marquez has stuck

2508:

With respect to transparency: If someone asks me to look at an article or a discussion, if I comment there I always say so, and say who asked me (unless it's one of the random RfC notices).I think I have also made it clear numerous times that they should not anticipate whatever it is they might

568:

Last nomination the nominator nominated a lot of these articles all at once, and most of them were notable, with the rest no one really spending too much time with. Is there anything about the guy other than mentioning him running for office, and briefly quoting him at times when he was in office?

513:

Which coverage is "more than trivial"? I didn't say that being behind a paywall is in any way a rationale for deletion—it's obviously not (likewise coverage that isn't online at all is sufficient to establish notability). However, the snippets available on the paywalled articles strongly suggest the

787:

Canvassing? In fairness, it should be noted that Luciferwildcat notified EVERYONE who commented on the previous AfD, regardless of how they voted. The exception was you, Purplebackpack; as you can see at my talk page, he asked me to notify you because of your mutual agreement to stay away from each

531:

Well since trivial means of "little importance" and he has been used as an expert by a national newspapers over decades, I find that to be beyond trivial. He is not mentioned in passing, and WP:N#Significant Coverage states that the subject need be the main topic, he is not mentioned in passing but

2512:

As for my opinion, I don't comment to add to the vote count--I comment in the hope of convincing anyone open to listening, or of giving my own perspective for what it may be worth. What I would have to say is as relevant or not on what you may think of its merits, no matter how I got there. If you

2472:

Bongomatic must be perma-banned for this horrible canvassing. LOL. just kidding. I'll say this -- DGG's opinion is well-respected by most everyone, but inviting him to an AfD where you already know its one of his areas where he'll vote delete, in a drama-fest AfD like this, is going to get some

2160:

I am referring to BASIC "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" and I find that the all the cited

1253:

When I see an item on the rescue list I try and find sources to improve it, and sometimes vote but I vote both keep and delete depending on the topic. When I added this entry I did so in the hopes other edits might expand the references. It is unprecedented for another editor to remove or call for

1157:

My mistake. He didn't originally write the article, but he expanded it threefold and became its principal defender. As for the Rescue list, I agree that it would be improper to use the Rescue template to try to recruit "keep" votes, but that doesn't appear to be what happened in this case - or in

825:

It's just good policy and although not required it is generally recommended that all editors of an article be notified of a nomination, since that was already done the last time, I figured it might be better to simply notify those that did decide to comment on that occasion. Furthermore it is not

2241:

guideline. A mayor of Richmond would I think be notable; a city council member not. There's no clear line on size--the dubious range for mayor in the past has been between 40 and 100,000, The range for council depends on the relative importance of the council as well as the size of the city, but

2132:

Right so the Contra Costa Times, Oakland Tribune, San Jose Mercury News, Berkeley Daily Planet, East Bay Express, San Francisco Chronicle are "local" for Richmond, but that does not make them unreliable nor independent. They cover all sorts of topics but the only situation in which there are not

1746: 1198:

Always a small number of people claiming that nonsense, but most usually see reason and agree the opposite. Been through this so many times, many don't bother responding to those things, or just scan through and don't read it all, it just long and never ending nonsense. And in that particular

2092:

The answer me this, how is it we have so many statements about this man sourced if the coverage is less then trivial? If there are multiple statements beyond simply party affiliation and election-win-loss then trivial the coverage it is not, and since there are multiple statements and article

222:. Sources are all entirely local in scope or do not provide a substantial level of coverage. Previous AfD resulted in no consensus, however each keep vote was either an comment on the nominator rather than the article or pointed to the vague notion that sources exist without referring to any. 252:

of over 100,000 people and served as vice mayor, and in fact is one of the longest serving politicians with over 23 years on the council. Also this is not your average city council, they get national press coverage all the time for being a controversial green party leaning city even in Cuban

1441:

I have now reviewed more than 200 hits in Factiva. Many are duplicates. The vast majority are quotes relating to routine council and committee business. What is remarkable is how little else there is. When he's described, it's never with any details beyond "considered a leader in the Latino

1073:

I challenge your assertion that everyone who wasn't "part of ARS" voted delete, and that the keep votes were from Article Rescue people "to a man". The discussion itself contradicts you. There were actually four "Keep" votes at that discussion. They were: Carrite (the first commenter at the

1023:

And all those people voted "delete". To a man, everyone who voted "Keep" in the previous discussion was involved with the ARS or rescuing articles in some way. Had the ARS stayed home on that AfD, the article would almost certainly have been deleted. I expected the nominations to be

1106:

The main point is that both AfDs, the article was nominated for rescue, and in both of those cases, the rescue template was used improperly in that it was used to get more keep votes rather than actually fix the article. I, for one, believe it should be removed from the Rescue list

2424:

seems to be a better filter for AfD discussions where DGG and I have both participated (don't know if it's comprehensive, but seems as though it should be). The only time I see us having converged on a political subject (I'm not claiming to have done a comprehensive review) is

2332:

counts as canvassing. Things not going your way, so you called someone to ask them to join us, and they just happened to vote the way you did. DGG has voted delete in similar AFDS as this one hasn't he? Have you both voted delete together in a previous AFD for a politician?

2147:

But the coverage in all the sources we've discussed (or at least I've tried to examine above) has been trivial mentions. I feel like the issue is that you've created this concept that a bunch of trivial coverage combines into real coverage, but that's not actually written

1341:

notable. SF Chronicle etc. are sufficient. Newspaper mentions last week of him being named to a San Pablo oversight board for the defunct redevelopment authority. I am moreover amused that the "John Marquez" crime novels have the fictional policeman in Richmond, CA.

1654:

I agree that !votes without evidence and contrary to the guidelines should be given reduced weight by the closing admin. For example, it is not helpful if a !vote looks at nine reliable sources with significant coverage and says "not seeing a hit on WP:GNG".

994:

Purplebackpack89, last time you had a large number of articles nominated at once, and no one wanted to waste time sorting through all of them. Don't blame the Article Rescue Squadron for that. You had other people participating that weren't part of the ARS.

810:

It's not real canvassing to a full extent. That being said, when the purpose of this new AfD was to avoid the weak or unacceptable !voting of the last, bringing in all the same editors seems like this may not get the clearer consensus I was hoping

1936:

Candidate described in one sentence in an article about new city council candidates. We find this type of election coverage at this level unacceptable to prove notability for candidates for much higher offices, let alone a city council

1485:

around long around, and served in enough roles, ran for mayor, etc., which led to the no consensus result in the first AfD. Not a shocking result. Its not like we don't articles on other city council members lying around, see, e.g.,

2133:

independent is in a scenario where Newspaper X is being used to cite article on Newspaper X's writer Y, that is not the case. And I refer to the statements sourced to the various independent third party sources such as the Chronicle.

2070:

For the subject under consideration here, nobody has demonstrated anything beyond the most trivial—nothing in any level of detail beyond the most basic of narratives about official acts that would be reported as a matter of course.

280:

Exactly. "Several mentions" and significant coverage are two different things. And your other points are interesting but don't provide inherent notability (indeed, vice mayor is hardly ever a notable position). Please give specific

879:

Yaksar, "the clearer consensus" you were "hoping for", being you wanted people who agree with you. You shouldn't just keep nominating something for deletion until you get the results you want. That's basically gaming the system.

2045:

If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish

1976:. Claiming that something is notable by mass-dumping a bunch of questionably relevant links isn't helpful. It was repudiated in Viramontes and several other articles where you've done this; I hope it's repudiated here as well 702:

Although limited it is not trivial and BIO states that a lot of limited coverage adds up to routine coverage, since he is out of office but still in the papers that is good evidence of this subject having lasting encyclopedic

1024:

non-controversial, which they would've been if the ARS hadn't come in guns blazing. I also resent the apparent implication you're making that Yaksar and I are engaged in some sort of canvassing, possibly with each other

2446:

defines "stealth canvassing" as "contacting users off-wiki", which was not the case here, where I left a note on DGG's User talk page (which is specifically contrasted to stealth canvassing). DGG, by the way, is the

187: 423:

Even though I agree that LWC could align his arguments better with WP:SK criteria, it is a logical fallacy to conclude that just because LWC doesn't make such an argument, that WP:SK criteria are not applicable.

1832:

Two years after an FBI probe into vote-buying at Richmond City Hall... Another mayoral hopeful, City Councilman John Marquez, chose a campaign theme of a toilet bowl over the slogan, "Flush the @#! out of City

2550:

DGG pretty much took the words out of my mouth. Yes, he exists, we can certainly verify that, but what has he actually done? What's special or notable about him or something with which he's been involved?

2373:@Bongo, yes I have and the request from one single commentator definitely would seem to fit the bill for votestaking, quite red handed, and also more subtly I would say Campaigning and Stealth canvassing IMO. 1914:

The site doesn't load, but from what I can tell it's the newspaper of a local community college where he worked, so it's not really independent (nor does it show the type of greater coverage we're looking to

1359:

I wish I could see what was behind all those paywalls to be certain. Being covered in multiple newspapers, and not just brief political announcements for his local area, seems to indicate notability to me.

1669:

Ok, by the looks of it you're trying to turn this request for some actual sources into a discussion of edits in a totally different discussion. I've seen you try to derail discussions before, please stop.--

1918:

Can't load with my connection, but if I've correctly identified the article at another source then it seems to just be short mention with no significant coverage (please correct me if it is more in depth)

88: 1949:

That just means "Richmond Councilor" in Spanish. Also his name seems to have changed to Juan. Is it a source or are you just trying to carpet bomb with sources regardless of whether they show notability?

676:. He has received coverage in multiple sources, not just his local paper (the Contra Costa Times) but three regional papers (the San Francisco Chronicle, Oakland Tribune and San Jose Mercury News). -- 1199:

discussion, it was determined that the template on the main article was a problem, while having an Article Rescue List was just fine. It wasn't eliminated based on unproven canvassing concerns.

297:

There are several mentions that are significant coverage, such as an extended quote as an authority on the subject, and other SF Chronicle sources in the article and also noted on the talk page.

942:

when the purpose of this new AfD was to avoid the weak or unacceptable !voting of the last, bringing in all the same editors seems like this may not get the clearer consensus I was hoping for.

1586: 1626:

Your say it is not particularly relevant, but at that page you mention "some shmo who served on a City Council in a medium-sized town", so it is relevant. Also, WP:GNG is relevant.

1172: 690:

The coverage in those papers seems to be limited. As bay area publications they cover the politics of more minor cities, but not to any extent that is beyond routine or trivial.--

181: 2195: 643: 926:

DreamFocus, let's not get personal - and let's get our facts right. Yaksar was not the nominator last time and I don't think they even participated in that discussion. --

2115:

this man? Many of the facts in the article are sourced to the most local / non-independent of sources that don't confer notability to someone even if covered in detail.

621: 142: 1438:, even if the "verify" is minimal—nobody's given a citation (not requiring a web link) for any source claimed to provide more than "just brief political announcements". 438:

Just to be sure I follow, you're saying it's wrong to assume that his speedy keep is not applicable just because he doesn't argue in a way that speedy keep applies?--

147: 83: 2426: 738:

per nom and per rationale in first AfD. Not seeing how a minor city councilman passes WP:POLITICIAN. Would also note that there has been canvassing of this AfD

2448: 601: 1493:, etc. I'm not saying whether we should have them, I don't care about OTHERSTUFF, I haven't voted, I'm just noting why debates like this one get gummed up.-- 56:

canvassed. If you'd like to know when the article is nominated for deletion, put it on your watchlist. This type of cacophonous discussion is not helpful.

1274: 2052:

This obviously contemplates that there is "substantial coverage", "trivial coverage" and various levels in between. To spell this out in more details:

1603:

That's not particularly relevant, as a) John Marquez isn't Maria Viramontes, and b) Maria Viramontes was deemed both at AfD and DRV to be non-notable

1089: 788:

other. I declined but I said you would undoubtedly find it anyhow, as you promptly did. Also please note that we all agree the subject does not pass

2513:

don't agree with me & think you've answered my objections, my coming here hasn't hurt you--it's enabled you to better defend your position.

1768: 1640:

I think mere "votes" that are entirely arbitrary and contradict policy and precedent should be given their due low weight by the closing admin.

2233:

Fortunately for the rational construction of an encyclopedia , the GNG guideline says itself that it is not universally applicable; it's the

1807:

John Marquez, a retired labor standards investigator and 14-year councilman who lost his seat in 2001 during an unsuccessful run for mayor...

1703: 269: 2436: 115: 110: 2599: 2581: 2563: 2524: 2503: 2482: 2463: 2415: 2382: 2358: 2324: 2303: 2276: 2253: 2221: 2207: 2170: 2155: 2142: 2127: 2102: 2083: 2026: 2014: 1994: 1960: 1900: 1884: 1676: 1664: 1649: 1635: 1621: 1598: 1576: 1569:

could link or point to actual specific articles they feel would count as acceptable significant coverage it would really be helpful.--

1539: 1525: 1502: 1477: 1454: 1429: 1401: 1383: 1351: 1325: 1313: 1286: 1263: 1222: 1193: 1167: 1152: 1125: 1101: 1083: 1042: 1018: 967: 935: 903: 860: 835: 818: 805: 778: 756: 724: 712: 697: 685: 657: 635: 613: 592: 557: 545: 526: 508: 491: 445: 433: 418: 406: 392: 352: 322: 306: 288: 273: 229: 119: 67: 2497: 2457: 2409: 2318: 2297: 2121: 2077: 1448: 769:

Also was a vice mayor and this is not a minor city, it has over 100,000 people, which is the standard definition of a large city.

520: 485: 102: 1792:"Campaign 2004 -- Richmond. Voters have chance to set new course. 5 of 9 council seats open -- city mired in financial problems" 202: 1924:

This one the coverage is more substantial, but it's from a local political blog, not one of the wider papers referred to above.

17: 1921:

Only mentioned in one sentence with no real substantial information along with other council member; not significant coverage.

1730: 717:

I'm not really sure where you're finding that in BIO. But regardless, a one sentence mention is trivial, not simply limited.--

533: 169: 2182: 569:

Did he do any interviews? All my searches show a lot of paywalls, so hard to know if he got significant coverage or not.

1849: 1406:

I signed up for the second batch, but don't have one yet, so I just have to trust others that say they have read things.

2395:

Luciferwildcat, Dream Focus, either refactor / strike your comments or start an ANI or whatever. Either your reading of

532:

as part of the subject in general in most articles and quite often. There are dozens of articles on the Chronicle alone

1983: 1610: 1514: 1466: 1302: 1182: 1141: 1114: 1031: 849: 745: 163: 1175:

would indicate a widespread belief that tagging/listing something for rescue was used to canvass for "Keep" votes

2618: 1880: 1660: 1631: 1594: 429: 40: 411:

Fortunately your opinion is not what determined the speedy keep criteria, which I still encourage you to read.--

2577: 2378: 2272: 2217: 2203: 2166: 2138: 2098: 2010: 1754: 1645: 1259: 831: 774: 708: 609: 541: 504: 499:, the coverage is more than trivial and there is a lot of it. Being behind paywalls is not an excuse to delete. 402: 348: 302: 265: 248:

a newspaper for a major metropolitan area. He was the first hispanic for the city council of a major port city

1791: 1719: 159: 1988: 1759: 1615: 1519: 1471: 1307: 1187: 1146: 1119: 1036: 854: 750: 241: 1816: 1738: 209: 2614: 1978: 1605: 1509: 1461: 1297: 1177: 1136: 1109: 1026: 844: 740: 380: 36: 2493: 2453: 2405: 2314: 2293: 2117: 2073: 1973: 1876: 1656: 1627: 1590: 1444: 789: 669: 516: 481: 425: 257: 249: 219: 106: 62: 1893:

significant coverage (as in something more than his name on a list or a one line quote about him).--

2573: 2374: 2268: 2213: 2199: 2185: 2162: 2134: 2094: 2006: 1641: 1255: 827: 770: 704: 605: 537: 500: 398: 344: 298: 261: 195: 2473:

flack. The closing admin can take this into account while appreciating DGG's thoughtful input.--

1282: 1163: 1097: 1079: 931: 801: 681: 388: 245: 2291:? The criteria are: scale, message, audience, and transparency—which do you think was breached? 175: 2595: 2288: 1841:

Márquez's Statement of Qualifications, for the General Election to be held on November 4, 2008

1435: 1347: 1254:

the removal of a rescue and it is futile much like a single editor demanding an end to an Afd.

653: 631: 29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

2613:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

672:; city councilman is not an automatically notable position. However I believe he may fulfill 35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

2561: 2443: 2396: 2336: 2152: 2023: 1957: 1897: 1673: 1573: 1490: 1407: 1361: 1322: 1200: 996: 945: 881: 815: 721: 694: 570: 554: 442: 415: 343:

When an individual deems fit to give his opinion is what makes anyone's comment appropriate.

319: 285: 226: 2590:- Ample sourcing provided above to demonstrate encyclopedic worth of this subject per GNG. 2058:

Trivial coverage—even if in multiple sources—may not be sufficient to establish notability.

536:, and others for the SJ Mercury, Berk Daily Planet, and Oakland Tribune, far from Richmond. 2038: 1486: 842:

I fear that again rescue-tagging it will get us in the same bucket of syrup as last time.

792:; that's not at issue. The question is whether he has enough independent coverage to pass 57: 2055:

Substantial coverage in one or a couple of sources is sufficient to establish notability.

98: 73: 2439:, which show that his "keep" opinions are more than twice as frequent as his "deletes"; 1840: 2520: 2475: 2249: 1865:(w)Irma Anderson(i). 7,605. (w)John Marquez(i). 7,414. (w)Richard Griffin(i) 7,074. 1776: 1532: 1495: 1394: 1278: 1159: 1093: 1075: 927: 797: 793: 677: 673: 384: 2591: 2264:

The issue about Cinco de Mayo speaking time is a "who voted for what" issue? Also;

1343: 1273:

If the result here is leaning toward "delete", may I suggest instead a redirect to

649: 627: 2093:

sections cited by various sources from major newspapers, the coverage is multiple.

218:

City councilman (a position that is not inherently notable in itself) that failes

136: 2037:

I will assume good faith and that Luciferwildcat is simply not a careful reader.

2552: 2403:

not the one throwing around accusations of violations of behavioral guidelines.

2308:

Additionally, I should correct DGG's summary of my posting on his page. I said "

2149: 2020: 1954: 1940:

Just one sentence about his campaign slogan, not significant coverage obviously.

1894: 1670: 1570: 1319: 812: 718: 691: 551: 439: 412: 316: 282: 223: 1684:

Time for me to leave here. But before I do, here is what I have found so far:

550:

You're still just linking to searches for sources, not actual specific ones.--

1392:

Anything you see on highbeam? I gotz one of those free accounts there now.--

1530:

Yes, there's always much easier fruit out there than stuff like this one.--

2515: 2244: 1817:"'Teflon Don' comes back in Richmond. Reese trying again to be kingmaker" 1092:

of members of the Article Rescue Squadron. Neither of them is on it. --

514:

level of coverage and what they suggest is that it's not significant.

600:

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's

1721:, Officials meet with public over immigratin raids, Delfin Vigil, 2607:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

1755:

Richmond to declare state of emergency to curb spate of violence

2429:, where DGG opined to keep an article I nominated for deletion. 1850:"Final county-by-county election results. Contra Costa County" 2451:, so "stealthy" is hardly the way to describe posting there. 1769:"Pinole redevelopment successor agency to hold first meeting" 240:

the nominator is wrong, this guy has several mentions in the

1943:

His candidate statement on the city's site, not independent.

1790:

Cecilia M. Vega, Chronicle staff writer (October 21, 2004).

479:

criteria, I don't see any policy-based rationale to keep.

1815:

Meredith May, Chronicle Staff Writer (October 30, 2001).

315:

Also, please look of when a speedy keep is appropriate.--

2421: 2330: 2309: 1741:, Benjamin Pimentel, 13-03-1999, access date 16-04-2012 132: 128: 124: 194: 1587:

Knowledge talk:Articles for deletion/María Viramontes

1318:

As the nominator I see no issue with that redirect.--

379:

There actually are criteria for a "speedy keep", see

2572:, it's in the article, cited, and more than trivial. 1682:

Oh, and I thought you wanted to talk about sources.

1507:Which would explain why I didn't start this lol... 89:

Articles for deletion/John Márquez (2nd nomination)

2181:Additional resources from several more newspapers, 1784:Voter Information Pamphlet, City of Richmond, 2006 1739:City Official Forced to Quit Settles With Richmond 940:You misunderstood what I wrote. Their statement " 43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2621:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2061:Coverage in between "substantial" and "trivial" 644:list of Politicians-related deletion discussions 622:list of California-related deletion discussions 2442:with respect to the stealth canvassing claim, 1295:Only if Marquez is covered or mentioned there 244:a major national newspaper in addition to the 2487:As I said above and in my note to DGG, I was 668:It's true that he is not an obvious keep per 208: 8: 2435:with respect to the votestacking claim, see 1275:Richmond City Council (Richmond, California) 642:Note: This debate has been included in the 620:Note: This debate has been included in the 2065:demonstrate notability if there are enough. 1933:City's voter info pamphlet, not independent 1946:Nothing but the numbers from the election. 641: 619: 599: 1731:Ex-Richmond official files FPPC complaint 602:list of content for rescue consideration 81: 1771:, San Jose Mercury News, April 2, 2012 1733:, Contra Costa Times, February 4, 2009 1714:, Contra Costa Times, October 31, 1996 2111:What are the many sourced statements 1927:One quote from him, no real coverage. 1725:, 29-01-2007, access date 17-04-2012* 7: 1763:, 16-06-2005, access date 16-04-2012 1459:Agreed. Pretty clearly non-notable 1843:– from the City of Richmond website 1712:Prop 209 could hit hard in Richmond 1706:, Accent Advocate, October 29, 2009 253:newspapers, this is a speedy keep. 80: 2491:aware of DGG's view on this area. 2212:There added even more content now. 84:Articles for deletion/John Márquez 24: 2192:here at the Berkeley Daily Planet 1872:"Juan Márquez" Richmond concejal 1749:, Oakland Tribune, June 22, 2005 1337:Appears from this vantage to be 2019:In what way does it say that?-- 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 397:In my opinion it is warranted. 1: 1972:Unscintillating, please read 1905:Ok, let's start from the top. 1747:"Emotions boil in Richmond" 383:. None of them apply here. 274:05:24, 16 April 2012‎ (UTC) 2638: 2600:22:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC) 2582:19:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC) 2564:08:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC) 2525:02:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC) 2504:14:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC) 2483:13:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC) 2464:07:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC) 2416:02:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC) 2383:02:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC) 2359:00:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC) 2325:00:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC) 2304:00:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC) 2277:23:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC) 2254:15:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC) 2222:22:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC) 2208:05:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC) 2194:and even more here at the 2171:01:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 2156:22:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 2143:08:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 2128:01:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 2103:20:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC) 2084:08:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC) 2027:08:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC) 2015:08:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC) 1995:05:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC) 1961:04:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC) 1930:City site, not independent 1901:04:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC) 1885:02:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC) 1856:. SFGate. November 6, 1997 1677:00:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC) 1665:00:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC) 1650:23:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 1636:22:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 1622:15:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 1599:04:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 1577:03:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 1540:19:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 1526:19:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 1503:19:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 1478:15:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 1455:04:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 1430:01:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 1402:00:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 1384:23:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 1352:19:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 1326:18:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 1314:18:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 1287:18:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 1264:21:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 1223:15:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 1194:15:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 1168:17:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 1153:16:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 1126:16:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 1102:04:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 1084:04:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 1043:03:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 1019:23:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 968:00:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 936:23:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 904:23:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 861:18:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 836:23:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 819:18:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 806:18:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 779:23:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 757:16:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 725:04:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC) 713:23:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 698:18:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 686:15:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 658:15:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 636:15:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 614:15:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 593:10:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 558:05:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC) 546:23:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 527:14:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 509:09:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 492:08:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 446:04:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC) 434:02:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC) 419:00:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC) 407:21:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 393:03:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 353:01:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 323:19:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 307:01:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 289:18:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 230:16:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC) 68:16:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC) 2610:Please do not modify it. 2399:is wrong or mine is—and 1777:City of Richmond website 32:Please do not modify it. 1854:San Francisco Chronicle 1821:San Francisco Chronicle 1796:San Francisco Chronicle 1760:San Francisco Chronicle 1723:San Francisco Chronicle 242:San Francisco Chronicle 2266:So you were canvassed? 79:AfDs for this article: 2310:no idea of your views 1757:, Chuck Squatriglia, 1779:John Márquez profile 250:Richmond, California 2449:7th most watch user 2432:More specifically, 2237:guideline, not the 1134:the article author 2557: 2329:I do believe this 246:Contra Costa Times 48:The result was 2555: 2502: 2495: 2481: 2462: 2455: 2414: 2407: 2323: 2316: 2302: 2295: 2126: 2119: 2082: 2075: 1538: 1501: 1453: 1446: 1436:Trust, but verify 1400: 660: 647: 638: 625: 616: 525: 518: 490: 483: 277: 260:comment added by 2629: 2612: 2559: 2496: 2492: 2480: 2456: 2452: 2408: 2404: 2355: 2352: 2349: 2346: 2343: 2340: 2317: 2313: 2296: 2292: 2196:East Bay Express 2120: 2116: 2076: 2072: 1993: 1991: 1986: 1981: 1867: 1862: 1861: 1835: 1829: 1828: 1809: 1804: 1803: 1620: 1618: 1613: 1608: 1537: 1524: 1522: 1517: 1512: 1500: 1491:Adrian Schrinner 1476: 1474: 1469: 1464: 1447: 1443: 1426: 1423: 1420: 1417: 1414: 1411: 1399: 1380: 1377: 1374: 1371: 1368: 1365: 1312: 1310: 1305: 1300: 1219: 1216: 1213: 1210: 1207: 1204: 1192: 1190: 1185: 1180: 1151: 1149: 1144: 1139: 1124: 1122: 1117: 1112: 1041: 1039: 1034: 1029: 1015: 1012: 1009: 1006: 1003: 1000: 964: 961: 958: 955: 952: 949: 900: 897: 894: 891: 888: 885: 859: 857: 852: 847: 755: 753: 748: 743: 648: 626: 589: 586: 583: 580: 577: 574: 519: 515: 484: 480: 276: 254: 213: 212: 198: 150: 140: 122: 65: 60: 34: 2637: 2636: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2619:deletion review 2608: 2553: 2500: 2460: 2437:DGG's AfD stats 2412: 2353: 2350: 2347: 2344: 2341: 2338: 2321: 2300: 2124: 2080: 1989: 1984: 1979: 1977: 1877:Unscintillating 1859: 1857: 1848: 1826: 1824: 1814: 1801: 1799: 1789: 1657:Unscintillating 1628:Unscintillating 1616: 1611: 1606: 1604: 1591:Unscintillating 1520: 1515: 1510: 1508: 1487:Mary Pat Clarke 1472: 1467: 1462: 1460: 1451: 1424: 1421: 1418: 1415: 1412: 1409: 1378: 1375: 1372: 1369: 1366: 1363: 1308: 1303: 1298: 1296: 1217: 1214: 1211: 1208: 1205: 1202: 1188: 1183: 1178: 1176: 1147: 1142: 1137: 1135: 1120: 1115: 1110: 1108: 1088:P.S. Here is a 1037: 1032: 1027: 1025: 1013: 1010: 1007: 1004: 1001: 998: 962: 959: 956: 953: 950: 947: 898: 895: 892: 889: 886: 883: 855: 850: 845: 843: 751: 746: 741: 739: 587: 584: 581: 578: 575: 572: 523: 488: 426:Unscintillating 255: 155: 146: 113: 97: 94: 77: 63: 58: 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2635: 2633: 2624: 2623: 2603: 2602: 2574:LuciferWildCat 2567: 2566: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2510: 2498: 2467: 2466: 2458: 2440: 2430: 2410: 2386: 2385: 2375:LuciferWildCat 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2319: 2306: 2298: 2269:LuciferWildCat 2257: 2256: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2214:LuciferWildCat 2200:LuciferWildCat 2188: 2186:LuciferWildCat 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2163:LuciferWildCat 2158: 2135:LuciferWildCat 2122: 2106: 2105: 2095:LuciferWildCat 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2078: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2059: 2056: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2007:LuciferWildCat 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1951: 1950: 1947: 1944: 1941: 1938: 1934: 1931: 1928: 1925: 1922: 1919: 1916: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1874: 1873: 1869: 1868: 1845: 1844: 1837: 1836: 1811: 1810: 1786: 1785: 1781: 1780: 1773: 1772: 1765: 1764: 1751: 1750: 1743: 1742: 1735: 1734: 1727: 1726: 1716: 1715: 1708: 1707: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1642:LuciferWildCat 1580: 1579: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1449: 1439: 1387: 1386: 1354: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1316: 1290: 1289: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1256:LuciferWildCat 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1130:Also, Lucifer 1128: 1086: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 983: 982: 981: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 970: 913: 912: 911: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 870: 869: 868: 867: 866: 865: 864: 863: 840: 839: 838: 828:LuciferWildCat 785: 784: 783: 782: 781: 771:LuciferWildCat 760: 759: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 705:LuciferWildCat 662: 661: 639: 617: 606:LuciferWildCat 596: 595: 566: 565: 564: 563: 562: 561: 560: 538:LuciferWildCat 529: 521: 501:LuciferWildCat 486: 469: 468: 467: 466: 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 457: 456: 455: 454: 453: 452: 451: 450: 449: 448: 399:LuciferWildCat 381:WP:Speedy keep 364: 363: 362: 361: 360: 359: 358: 357: 356: 355: 345:LuciferWildCat 332: 331: 330: 329: 328: 327: 326: 325: 313: 312: 311: 310: 309: 299:LuciferWildCat 262:Luciferwildcat 216: 215: 152: 93: 92: 91: 86: 78: 76: 71: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2634: 2622: 2620: 2616: 2611: 2605: 2604: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2589: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2565: 2562: 2560: 2549: 2546: 2545: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2517: 2511: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2501: 2494: 2490: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2478: 2477: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2465: 2461: 2454: 2450: 2445: 2441: 2438: 2434: 2433: 2431: 2428: 2423: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2413: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2371: 2360: 2357: 2356: 2335: 2331: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2322: 2315: 2311: 2307: 2305: 2301: 2294: 2290: 2287: 2283: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2267: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2246: 2240: 2236: 2232: 2229: 2228: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2187: 2184: 2180: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2159: 2157: 2154: 2151: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2140: 2136: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2125: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2091: 2090: 2085: 2081: 2074: 2069: 2064: 2060: 2057: 2054: 2053: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2042: 2040: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2028: 2025: 2022: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2004: 1996: 1992: 1987: 1982: 1975: 1974:WP:GOOGLEHITS 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1959: 1956: 1948: 1945: 1942: 1939: 1935: 1932: 1929: 1926: 1923: 1920: 1917: 1913: 1912: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1899: 1896: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1882: 1878: 1871: 1870: 1866: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1846: 1842: 1839: 1838: 1834: 1822: 1818: 1813: 1812: 1808: 1797: 1793: 1788: 1787: 1783: 1782: 1778: 1775: 1774: 1770: 1767: 1766: 1762: 1761: 1756: 1753: 1752: 1748: 1745: 1744: 1740: 1737: 1736: 1732: 1729: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1718: 1717: 1713: 1710: 1709: 1705: 1702: 1701: 1683: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1675: 1672: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1619: 1614: 1609: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1578: 1575: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1561: 1560: 1541: 1535: 1534: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1523: 1518: 1513: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1498: 1497: 1492: 1488: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1475: 1470: 1465: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1452: 1445: 1440: 1437: 1434:I believe in 1433: 1432: 1431: 1428: 1427: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1397: 1396: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1385: 1382: 1381: 1358: 1355: 1353: 1349: 1345: 1340: 1336: 1333: 1332: 1327: 1324: 1321: 1317: 1315: 1311: 1306: 1301: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1288: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1224: 1221: 1220: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1191: 1186: 1181: 1174: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1150: 1145: 1140: 1133: 1129: 1127: 1123: 1118: 1113: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1044: 1040: 1035: 1030: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1017: 1016: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 987: 986: 985: 984: 969: 966: 965: 943: 939: 938: 937: 933: 929: 925: 924: 923: 922: 921: 920: 919: 918: 917: 916: 915: 914: 905: 902: 901: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 862: 858: 853: 848: 841: 837: 833: 829: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 817: 814: 809: 808: 807: 803: 799: 795: 791: 790:WP:POLITICIAN 786: 780: 776: 772: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 758: 754: 749: 744: 737: 734: 726: 723: 720: 716: 715: 714: 710: 706: 703:significance. 701: 700: 699: 696: 693: 689: 688: 687: 683: 679: 675: 671: 670:WP:POLITICIAN 667: 664: 663: 659: 655: 651: 645: 640: 637: 633: 629: 623: 618: 615: 611: 607: 603: 598: 597: 594: 591: 590: 567: 559: 556: 553: 549: 548: 547: 543: 539: 535: 530: 528: 524: 517: 512: 511: 510: 506: 502: 498: 495: 494: 493: 489: 482: 478: 474: 471: 470: 447: 444: 441: 437: 436: 435: 431: 427: 422: 421: 420: 417: 414: 410: 409: 408: 404: 400: 396: 395: 394: 390: 386: 382: 378: 377: 376: 375: 374: 373: 372: 371: 370: 369: 368: 367: 366: 365: 354: 350: 346: 342: 341: 340: 339: 338: 337: 336: 335: 334: 333: 324: 321: 318: 314: 308: 304: 300: 296: 295: 294: 293: 292: 291: 290: 287: 284: 279: 278: 275: 271: 267: 263: 259: 251: 247: 243: 239: 236: 235: 234: 233: 232: 231: 228: 225: 221: 220:WP:Politician 211: 207: 204: 201: 197: 193: 189: 186: 183: 180: 177: 174: 171: 168: 165: 161: 158: 157:Find sources: 153: 149: 144: 138: 134: 130: 126: 121: 117: 112: 108: 104: 100: 96: 95: 90: 87: 85: 82: 75: 72: 70: 69: 66: 61: 55: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 2609: 2606: 2587: 2569: 2568: 2547: 2514: 2488: 2474: 2400: 2337: 2285: 2281: 2265: 2243: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2153:(let's chat) 2112: 2062: 2044: 2024:(let's chat) 1958:(let's chat) 1952: 1898:(let's chat) 1875: 1864: 1858:. Retrieved 1853: 1831: 1825:. Retrieved 1820: 1806: 1800:. Retrieved 1795: 1758: 1722: 1704:John Marquez 1681: 1674:(let's chat) 1574:(let's chat) 1566: 1562: 1531: 1494: 1408: 1393: 1362: 1356: 1339:sufficiently 1338: 1334: 1323:(let's chat) 1270: 1201: 1131: 997: 946: 941: 882: 816:(let's chat) 735: 722:(let's chat) 695:(let's chat) 665: 571: 555:(let's chat) 496: 476: 472: 443:(let's chat) 416:(let's chat) 320:(let's chat) 286:(let's chat) 256:— Preceding 237: 227:(let's chat) 217: 205: 199: 191: 184: 178: 172: 166: 156: 99:John Márquez 74:John Márquez 53: 50:no consensus 49: 47: 31: 28: 2284:. Have you 2148:anywhere.-- 2046:notability. 238:Speedy Keep 182:free images 59:‑Scottywong 2289:WP:CANVASS 2190:Even more 1860:2011-12-10 1827:2011-12-10 1802:2011-12-10 281:sources.-- 64:| babble _ 2615:talk page 2444:WP:CANVAS 2397:WP:CANVAS 2239:universal 1937:position. 666:Weak keep 650:• Gene93k 628:• Gene93k 37:talk page 2617:or in a 2476:Milowent 2039:WP:BASIC 1823:. SFGate 1798:. SFGate 1533:Milowent 1496:Milowent 1395:Milowent 1279:MelanieN 1160:MelanieN 1094:MelanieN 1076:MelanieN 928:MelanieN 798:MelanieN 678:MelanieN 477:de facto 385:MelanieN 270:contribs 258:unsigned 143:View log 39:or in a 2592:Carrite 2570:Comment 2282:Comment 2235:general 2041:states 1563:Comment 1344:Collect 1271:Comment 736:Delete: 497:Comment 188:WP refs 176:scholar 116:protect 111:history 2548:Delete 2231:Delete 2150:Yaksar 2021:Yaksar 1955:Yaksar 1895:Yaksar 1671:Yaksar 1571:Yaksar 1567:anyone 1320:Yaksar 1132:wasn't 813:Yaksar 811:for.-- 794:WP:BIO 719:Yaksar 692:Yaksar 674:WP:BIO 552:Yaksar 473:Delete 440:Yaksar 413:Yaksar 317:Yaksar 283:Yaksar 224:Yaksar 160:Google 120:delete 2521:talk 2499:matic 2459:matic 2420:FWIW 2411:matic 2354:Focus 2320:matic 2299:matic 2250:talk 2123:matic 2113:about 2079:matic 1915:find) 1833:Hall. 1565:- If 1450:matic 1425:Focus 1379:Focus 1218:Focus 1014:Focus 963:Focus 899:Focus 588:Focus 522:matic 487:matic 203:JSTOR 164:books 148:Stats 137:views 129:watch 125:links 16:< 2596:talk 2588:Keep 2578:talk 2427:here 2422:this 2379:talk 2286:read 2273:talk 2218:talk 2204:talk 2183:here 2167:talk 2139:talk 2099:talk 2011:talk 1881:talk 1661:talk 1646:talk 1632:talk 1595:talk 1585:See 1357:Keep 1348:talk 1335:Keep 1283:talk 1277:? -- 1260:talk 1173:This 1164:talk 1098:talk 1090:list 1080:talk 932:talk 832:talk 802:talk 796:. -- 775:talk 709:talk 682:talk 654:talk 632:talk 610:talk 542:talk 534:here 505:talk 430:talk 403:talk 389:talk 349:talk 303:talk 266:talk 196:FENS 170:news 133:logs 107:talk 103:edit 2558:don 2516:DGG 2489:not 2401:I'm 2245:DGG 2063:may 1589:. 272:) 210:TWL 145:• 141:– ( 54:not 2598:) 2580:) 2523:) 2479:• 2381:) 2275:) 2252:) 2220:) 2206:) 2169:) 2141:) 2101:) 2013:) 1953:-- 1883:) 1863:. 1852:. 1830:. 1819:. 1805:. 1794:. 1663:) 1648:) 1634:) 1597:) 1536:• 1499:• 1489:, 1398:• 1350:) 1285:) 1262:) 1166:) 1100:) 1082:) 934:) 834:) 804:) 777:) 711:) 684:) 656:) 646:. 634:) 624:. 612:) 604:. 544:) 507:) 432:) 405:) 391:) 351:) 305:) 268:• 190:) 135:| 131:| 127:| 123:| 118:| 114:| 109:| 105:| 2594:( 2576:( 2556:Æ 2554:S 2519:( 2377:( 2351:m 2348:a 2345:e 2342:r 2339:D 2271:( 2248:( 2216:( 2202:( 2198:] 2165:( 2137:( 2097:( 2009:( 1990:p 1985:b 1980:p 1879:( 1659:( 1644:( 1630:( 1617:p 1612:b 1607:p 1593:( 1521:p 1516:b 1511:p 1473:p 1468:b 1463:p 1422:m 1419:a 1416:e 1413:r 1410:D 1376:m 1373:a 1370:e 1367:r 1364:D 1346:( 1309:p 1304:b 1299:p 1281:( 1258:( 1215:m 1212:a 1209:e 1206:r 1203:D 1189:p 1184:b 1179:p 1162:( 1148:p 1143:b 1138:p 1121:p 1116:b 1111:p 1096:( 1078:( 1038:p 1033:b 1028:p 1011:m 1008:a 1005:e 1002:r 999:D 960:m 957:a 954:e 951:r 948:D 930:( 896:m 893:a 890:e 887:r 884:D 856:p 851:b 846:p 830:( 800:( 773:( 752:p 747:b 742:p 707:( 680:( 652:( 630:( 608:( 585:m 582:a 579:e 576:r 573:D 540:( 503:( 428:( 401:( 387:( 347:( 301:( 264:( 214:) 206:· 200:· 192:· 185:· 179:· 173:· 167:· 162:( 154:( 151:) 139:) 101:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/John Márquez (2nd nomination) - Knowledge

Index