Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Held (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Held

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever thinks this article should be deleted, I doubt you did anything more important than Stephen Held did. Denzel Washington also did graduate work at the American Conservatory Theater, but was cut after the first year, while Held stayed for two. Why don't you just leave it alone? I have authored dozens of Wikipedia pages for over four years, and have done a good job on them at that. --Powder River 1876 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powder River 1876 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G4 a a recreation of a deleted article with the same source, and the same already busted claims. Contrary to what Powder River 1876 claims, he hasn't "done a good job" at creating articles, he has a rather long list of deleted articles, most of them relating to Powder River County, including things like Boothill Cemetery (Powder River County, Montana), Powder River Telegraph Station, Battle of Dry Creek (1865), Battle of Alkali Creek, Chris Wallace (actor), Cattle Herd Skirmish, Leopold Hohman, Homan's Rock, ... A 20% delete percentage on your created pages[1] is definitely not doing a good job at article creation, and if you start to recreate pages which have been deleted without any additional good sources showing that the previous AfD is no longer valid, then you are just wasting more of our time. Fram (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.