On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:45:56 -0500, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
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.
I mean: if he were not a single-minded pursuer of his crusades.
But this is circular reasoning of course.
Guy (JzG)