On 3/26/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Also, I have a hard time imagining a situation where it is absolutely impossible to purge POV from the bio of an otherwise notable person without nuking the article.
The "offending" information remains in the history without extensive oversighting which > would be grossly inappropriate in this case as the article history is the subject of a legal > action.
Using this logic, every bio with potentially inflammatory information would have to be deleted and written from scratch instead of just removing the bad info. If absolutely necessary, problem content can be removed from an article's history as is sometimes done with copyvios. In any case Bauer deletion did not end up causing a wheel war as the Brandt deletion had done which is good.
In the case of [[Danial Brandt]], one admin deleted it out of process under his own interpretation of IAR. He thought that by doing so he would make WP a better encyclopedia by getting rid of a thorn in its side. A lot of others agreed with him judging by all the barnstars and pictures of big brass balls on his talk page. However, others didn't and another admin restored the article. That should have been the end of the story as far as speedy deletes were concerned but instead it was deleted/restored/deleted/restored "lather rinse repeat". In the end, the article remained and Jimbo ended up whacking everybody involved, nothing was accomplished. It would have been better if it were "one delete", "one restore", "we talk about it on AFD". The result would have probably been the same but without the wheel war and without anybody being desysoped.
That's all I'm suggesting. Super speedy delete the article, bio or otherwise, if you feel you have a good reason but if another admin disagrees, then it should stay and go to AFD. If a non admin disagrees, then there's deletion review.