Rick wrote:
--- "Poor, Edmund W"
<Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com> wrote:
Why not write a Wikipedia about Wollman, if
he's
that fascinating? If it
survives the VFD process, than that might give us an
excuse to mention
him via a link from kooks newsgroup. But if it fails
a vfd vote, that's
pretty conclusive evidence that he's "non-notable".
Ed
He's already been deleted following a VfD vote.
If we were to follow both the policy that if something is deleted via a
VfD then a new article about it should never be created, and also the
policy that VfD is a quality-control mechanism (as you suggest in your
other posting sent around the same time as this one), this would lead to
some articles being declared forever uncreatable simply because the
first attempt to make it was unmitigatedly bad even if there's a
legitimate interest in having an article on that subject. Since deletion
removes old versions from history entirely I don't see what the point
would be, they're gone either way.
In this specific case the old deleted Wollmann article was already
pretty good IMO. I think the issue is whether the VfD came to the wrong
conclusion about it in the first place.