Agree with Fred - reposting bounced post that was sent in response to Relata:
I think Lar just restated the current WP:BIO guideline in slightly different wording. The problem as I see it was vast over-reaction by the first poster and the other user involved. He took Lar's describing the Google results as 'deceptive' as directed at him personally - clearly not the case. He demanded that Lar reconsider his close - not exactly politely, and when he was refused (quite politely) he ignored all the options described to him in order to harangue Lar further.
Lar was correct that he could go to DRV; he could also accept Lar's offer of userfying the article and restoring it when it was in better shape, etc. Minos and Enchantress would rather disparage Lar and argue about the closed AfD than take advantage of the next steps available to them. That is their prerogative, but it won't accomplish much on Wikipedia (as they have apparently found to their dismay). Not all intelligent and knowledgeable people in this world will find success editing Wikipedia. It isn't a crime, its just the way it is.
Nathan
(PS: There is now a DRV at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_5#Gary_L... )
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Bottom line:
"Therefore Delete, without prejudice to recreation if a significantly improved source demonstrating clear notability should appear later."
So if someone wants to do the work, it is simply a matter of crafting a decent article.
I don't actually agree with the closing, as Minos P. Dautrieve's comment should have been given stronger weight, but the obvious remedy is to flesh out the article, not just argue.
Fred