Deletion of Robert Krampf

Comment: Revisiting the topic a couple days later, I think the links I included above are enough to meet the |general notability guideline
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per  and . Honestly, this sounds like a |run of the mill touring "edutainer". Any allegations of crimes do not rise to the level of notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:PROF||WP:MILL)

Comment: I have not yet looked at the article to evaluate its notability. But in general, an ''arrest'' for child porn should stay out of the article; it's only once he's ''convicted'' (if he is) that we should cover it. I could point you to a previous example of a notable academic with the same issue, where despite newspaper coverage of the child porn arrest we kept it out of the article, but I won't because it might be considered a  violation just to name names here. So in any case, what we need to evaluate is the notability that was present before this event
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: in absence of any request from the subject.  The coverage in the LA Times is a fairly profile of the subject.  I didn't manage to view the coverage in the Sun-Sentinel, but I did see  ongoing coverage about his activism concerning the FCAT.  I think it's weakly enough to meet GNG.  I'll remark that pre-trial notability is marginal enough that I would certainly support a ; under the circumstances, there's a moderate chance that one will come
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE)