Update: the page was reinstated.
In December 2010, I finished one of James Marcus Bach's book. He is widely regarded as a reference in software testing, and I thought he deserved his own Wikipedia entry. It is worth noting that I am not related to Bach in any way. After noticing that his Wikipedia page had been deleted, I decided to recreate such a page. I wrote the content that has appeared, mostly unchanged, until its deletion on November 14, 2011.
For most of this time the page was marked as lacking "citations from reliable sources." To me this appeared bogus because the page did have multiple references. I contested this label on the talk page, but it served no useful purpose.
Without my knowledge, the page was then marked for speedy deletion and shortly after deleted since, supposedly, it was a copyright violation of a magazine published in March 2011 (see here). Notice how I wrote the content in December 2010, but somehow plagiarized content published in March 2011. This is, of course, impossible. What happened is that the March 2011 article paraphrased the Wikipedia entry. Notice how they use the phrase According to Google Scholar which I am sure I am the first one to have ever used with respect to James Marcus Bach.
To reiterate: the James Marcus Bach's Wikipedia entry was deleted because it was claimed to be a copyright violation of an article published after the page was written.
The speedy deletion, according to Wikipedia, only applies in unequivocal cases, where there is no free-content material on the page worth saving. I believe that it is far from being an unequivocal case.
I would like to stress that the page has been deleted before and contested from the first day I posted it. I believe this is unfair. I believe James Marcus Bach should have a Wikipedia entry. I believe that the most recent deletion was abusive and a breach of Wikipedia's own rules.
I saved a copy of the page as it were before it was deleted.
Daniel Lemire, Nov. 2011