Quoting Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net>et>:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:44:42 -0500,
joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu wrote:
It is clear that if Brandt were not Brandt it
would have
been almost certainly kept.
If he were not Brandt then we would not have had the article in the
first place, let's remember that.
Incorrect, Brandt was uninvolved when SV wrote the original article.
And even if
it were true, it would be irrelevant. An article of someone of an equivalent
notability would have been a keep. That this specific article had an odd
history has little relevancy to that decision.