I deleted an article on a living individual which led with the statement that she had been a leader in a disbanded hate group. The subject mailed OTRS and stated this was false, and it was unsourced. The rest of the article was also largely unsourced, or sourced to a polemical website.
It's been taken to deletion review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_14#.5B...
It is asserted by several people that we should undelete the article because the subject is notable and a sourced article could be written.
NO! FOR GOD'S SAKE, PEOPLE, WHAT ARE YOU THINKING!
If someone started a new article on the Dalai Lama that said he eats babies, we would delete it like a shot. We would not ''undelete'' it in order to write a new, sourced article. That would be pointless and stupid.
Where is the sense in undeleting an article whose content is of absolutely no value in creating a sourced neutral article?
I despair.
Guy (JzG)