"Notability" STILL isn't a deletion criterion.

There are a number of policies which make notability a deletion criterion, even if they don't use the word "notability". It's certainly used as a criterion often enough; it may be the single most popular reason given for deletion. Jay.

Alphax said: I could reluctantly see that--if he's the first person to get into this kind of situation with Wikipedia, for instance. However I'm not sure it would be very ethical to undelete on those grounds. It seems too trollish to me (though I don't think you are proposing it for trollish reasons).

Anthere (anthere9(a)yahoo.com) [050512 15:34]: Probably not at all. Read these: http://www.smbtech.com/ed/index.html http://www.smbtech.com/ed/whyed.html - d.

Alphax said: I *contributed* a considerable amount of material to them, although I do not endorse them. [...] One of my reasons for utterly repudiating the Wollmann fan club, prior to their compilation of that site, was their propensity for wild exaggeration, not to mention their tendency to unconsciously ape Wollmann himself. Wollmann claims to have persuaded ISP's to pull many accounts, because it is his intention to intimidate--he credits me with teaching him how to do this because I once reported him for spamming and his two accounts of that time were pulled. His fan club agrees that he has been successful, partly because it enables them to explain away the few times they've had their own accounts pulled for misbehaving, and partly because it serves their interests to make their own misbehavior look less serious in its consequences than his. I was for a considerable period of time, and may well still be, one of Wollmann's prime targets--my ISP told me they had received hundreds of complaint emails from Wollmann, and he inadvertently sent a number of the early complaints to me. ISP's do not pull the accounts of people who aren't misbehaving. None of the complaints ever resulted in any official or unofficial complaint or disciplinary action against me by my ISP. One ISP that received telephone complaints from Wollmann made an unprecedented post on Usenet detailing his bogus complaints. This is typical of Wollmann and his detractors. They exaggerate flagrantly.

Tony Sidaway wrote: A few days back I removed an external link Sj had added to the alt.usenet.kooks article that led to one of Wollmann's pages with his photographic art on display. The reason this link was added was to give Wollmann some context information since he was the only unlinked person in the list of award winners. This suggests to me that there's some legitimate interest in having a Wollman article, and I suggested moving that external link to it should one be created.

Poor, Edmund W said: Been there, done that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Edmond_Wollmann

Unless I'm very much mistaken, the idea of constructing an encyclopaedia is to gather together crumbs of information that individually are not particularly helpful to construct a whole which is. There seems to be a group of people who are intent on pulling out the centre of the loaf, leaving just the crust which will then implode under its own weight. The attitude of "well I've never heard of him so he can't deserve an article" is entirely too prevalent and needs to be addressed before we turn into just a list of people *everybody* knows about already.