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#.5…
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)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG