We can use these as a benchmark for Wiedemann's notability. With the exception of those asterisked, they all clearly satisfy notability. Even where asterisked, we feel the issue is for the most part essentially related to inadequate editing. Without exception they all satisfy what you might call the common garden test of an internet search. In each case such a search brings up a significant list of newspaper, web, and journal reviews. This is "simply" not the case for Barbara. To be fair she is retired, but we think it's clear enough that it has always been so.
Recently (March 2016), a blog piece on the Wikipediocracy site (a Wikipedia criticism site) observed that he was continuing to edit at Commons, where an examination of his contributions shows that he had in the past (before his conviction) indulged in what looks like attempts at grooming minors. Subsequently his account at Commons was closed and his BLP at Wikipedia deleted on a second attempt. This was when Aaij passed his judgement on the individuals's notability as a poet we quote at the top. This judgement was not subsequently challenged by any other contributor, although consensus of opinion at the first AfD was overwhelmingly that he was notable enough (for example one contributor observed that their local academic library carried five of his books). The second AfD made it clear the individual had been convicted on child pornography charges and that there was an ongoing debate about the issue at Wikipediocracy
Of course the Wikimedia Foundation is entitled to make its own judgements about its members regarding child protection issues on its projects. The Wikipediocracy piece, however, strikes us as vigilantism. In our view, the issue should have been dealt with confidentially by the Wikimedia Foundation, who were on the face of it negligent in not examining and closing the Commons account when the individual was banned from Wikipedia if, as seems to be the case, the cause was related to his conviction on child pornography charges.
Wikipediocracy is entitled to raise the question of Commons' negligence, but they should have found a way that respected the right to privacy of the individual, and that especially as his offending appears to have been at the lower end of the scale, his custodial sentence just 23 months, and there being no suggestion that he had subsequently broken the terms of his probation.
Regarding Aaij's role, we see a conflict between on the one hand his role as an academic and on the other hand as a Wikipedia official. Academics are not normally called upon to judge the notability of poets in this way. We could wish that in this case Aaij had recused himself from the task. It's patently clear that his judgement was regarded as definitive and that is much to be regretted. A biography on a Canadian university's site still stands.
We don't feel we need labour the public interest issue here.