The remark about GNG (General Notability Guidelines) and BLP1E (notable for a single event) appears to be a coded reference to the unfortunate circumstances of the case we describe later. But what struck us most about Aaij's judgement was the emphatic qualification "simply" not notable. There might be an issue to discuss over this poet using his own printing press to publish his several volumes of verse, but that is not generally regarded as vanity publishing and his press carries a respectable list of other authors in worthy causes such as chronicling the abuse and battering of women (hence the "literary activism" of newspaper reports). By contrast Wiedemann has published just three chapbooks (pamplets) with a press that does  describe itself as "small".

It's worth looking at Wikipedia guidelines for the notability of creative professionals such as authors and artists. Any one of the following criteria is regarded as sufficient to establish notability:

It is indeed a question whether our Canadian poet can be said to fulfill any of these requirement. He is a prize-winning poet and active in his national poetry associations. He has built up a significant body of work satisfying the condition of requirement 3, but it's not clear that the requirement of multiple reviews is satisfied.

But it is  quite clear that Wiedemann "simply" doesn't satisfy any of these requirements. At the time of Aaij's article start, she had published just one of her chapbooks. Her body of published work is far from significant and the only review of it her BLP can muster is from a local writers' cooperative and must be considered more of a promotion than a critical review.  We can add that her BLP misrepresents the facts when it says Wiedemann has published a "book" of poetry. Chapbooks are pamplets and not books. They attract limited critical attention, if at all, and limited sales. At present (mid-May 2016) none of Wiedemann's chapbooks are available at Amazon.

We ought to make one concession regarding the "small" press that has published her three chapbooks. This is the Finishing Line Press, a local press based in Georgetown devoted to showcasing poets, especially women poets. Although it describes itself as a small press, it has built itself up a substantial list of authors, as can be seen by using Wikipedia's search engine to identify writers with Wikipedia biographies which list this press as a publisher. These are as follows (some of these writers may have only incidentally published verse and we may have missed some):

Barbara Wiedemann

Barbara Wiedemann is the poet we mention in our page on the  Spirit of the Dead  DYK . She was formerly a professor of Poetry at Auburn University at Montgomery and thus a colleague of Aaij. Despite declaring an aversion to writing biographical articles, Aaij nevertheless contributed a carefully researched article about her early on (April 2009) in his editing. In turn, Barbara was one of two colleagues who encouraged Aaij to cite his editing at Wikipedia as research in his application for tenure.

We were aware that Barbara Wiedemann does not really satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines when it comes to including a so-called Biography of a Living Person (BLP) about her. We hardly thought it worth making an issue of it.

However, a recent Article for Deletion (AfD) nomination for the BLP of a Canadian poet, where Aaij contributed, highlights the issue of notability as a matter of public interest we wish to comment on.

The AfD in question concerns a prize-winning Canadian poet, literary activist, and publisher. The circumstances of the AfD nomination are unfortunate and we deal with that at the end. For the time being we content ourselves with simply copying Aaij's judgement of this poet's notability:

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.

Finally, we should return to the circumstances of the Article for Deletion (AfD) nomination we mention at the beginning. The AfD relates, as we noted, to the Biography of a Living Person (BLP) of a prize-winning Canadian poet, literary activist, and publisher. It is clear that this individual had created his biography himself and the BLP had already (April 2006) survived one AfD nomination. The individual in question was later (August 2012) banned as a Wikipedia editor. The banning notice does not specify any reason and addresses enquiries to Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. There had been reports in the press the year earlier (October 2011) that the individual had been convicted of child pornography offences and it's reasonable to surmise the ban was in some way related to this conviction. Whether he had indeed committed any infringement of the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use at Wikipedia is not clear. He was not at this stage banned from Commons.

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.