Interestingly, this reminds me of a quote in Daniel
Terdiman's article
about his entry's AFD:
<<I asked a friend, Business 2.0 magazine senior editor Chris Taylor,
about his Wikipedia entry, which was created in 2005 when he wrote
about Wikipedia for Time magazine.
"It didn't take long to realize why the entry had been made--and the
timing, right after my authorship of the first Time story on
Wikipedia, made sense," Taylor said. "So after the initial feelings of
flattery and suspicion, I was like, Oh, OK, this is my 'reward' from
the Wiki geeks. I wrote about their baby, so I've arrived.">>
http://news.com.com/To+delete+Wikipedia+entry+or+not+to+delete+-+page+2/210…
That would be a cynical way of looking at it. There's no core policy issue
at stake, the reason for deletion was a poor one. We're just responding to
public criticism by taking a token step in the right direction.
-- Tim Starling