Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giovanni di Stefano

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rgoodermote (talk | contribs) at 02:18, 20 April 2008 (→‎Break 5 - Options so far: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Giovanni di Stefano

Giovanni di Stefano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The subject of this article, Giovanni de Stefano, wants this article gone. To the degree that this user is willing to initiate legal proceedings over it, as seen here. As the WMF and the community hasn't taken action to protect this BLP subject per the standards that any BLP subject should be entitled to, and the possible existence of this article threatens the name and reputation of this BLP subject, and both the project and any individual editor who has touched the article is potentially at risk, the local community should simply remove the article. Delete per WP:IAR, and for the well-being of the BLP subject, Wikipedia, and the editors of this project. Before anyone says "Notability", there are more important things in life than our silly Wikipedia games. If real people are negatively affected, we do the right thing, and stop hurting them. Delete. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 22:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm confused about this nomination, which appears totally at odds with your comments on the talkpage recently. You were gung-ho about including negative information as long as it was properly sourced a few days ago, but now the mere presence of a legal threat is enough to convince you that the article should be deleted? Avruch T 01:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we are encountering BLP issues or vandalism, we can protect the article. Note that this article was recently placed under the care of BLPWatch, where a group of volunteers watches all edits to it in real time. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 22:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it written that "We're not allowed to cause people hurt?" - and even if something in BLP can be interpreted that way, who says we are hurting him now? Nothing has really changed in the article in the last few weeks, he's just worried that it might at some point in the future. But you know, and I know, that nothing will make it into the article that hasn't passed serious scrutiny as to attribution. That should be enough to ensure that we aren't causing him harm by including anything beyond what the mainstream press has covered thoroughly. If his history earns him the kind of coverage he doesn't like, that isn't our responsibility to fix - its his. Avruch T 01:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's an essay, located at HARM. I was going to point out that it's an essay, not policy, but I don't think it would get a response other than "(expletive) policy". Celarnor Talk to me 01:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Pun ("undo harm") probably not intended, I suppose. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • This article is hurting di Stefano and his family, otherwise they would not be issuing legal threats (and while I do not support these or any legal threats on wikipedia I am depressed that people like Di Stefano, Murphy and Brandt etc feel the need to issue legal threats. Its not like the self-promoting people and companies who we should indeed treat very harshly I'd love to see an article here on this extremely interesting lawyer (who I had already added to my watchlist before someone informed me of the problems on this article) and have enjoyed adding about JustCarmen etc so if we are hurt not having the article I would say we should blame the lack of balance and keeping to BLP, and I find this tragic. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an answer to that question. There is a very good answer to that question but BLP means all I can do is point you to the archives. New Zealand ones would probably be good as well. particularly around 1990.Geni 23:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am showing respect. If you think otherwise I would advise you to do more research. Incerdentaly in your opening you are worried about damage to wikipedia. How do you think Private eye will be reporting your actions?Geni 23:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know who "Private eye" is and I could care less. My conscience is clean. Wikipedia could theoretically burn, and end up with 1/100th the traffic we do now, if we do no harm to living people, and that would be fine. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not hurt people, and not to drive up traffic, enable people like Wikia or Ask.com to turn a profit, or anything like that. What good is an encyclopedia with no morals or ethics? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One with content relevant to this century, apparently. What you advocate would essentially disallow future articles about notable living people, since whenever they whine and moan about things being made more public about them, their whining and moaning translates into the article getting deleted. We might as well just disallow them by default. Celarnor Talk to me 00:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break 1

  • Not remotely marginal. Whatever you think of the guy the media love him. Always ready with a newsworth quote and involved in a selection of high profile cases that even Sir John Mortimer would stuggle to match.Geni 22:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As powerful as we may wish we were, we don't have the power to stifle the truth. Since it's the truth you seem to be worried about disseminating, well, there are plenty other ways to get information about people. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 23:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And we can't stop the rest of the world from hurting people. We can, however, police ourselves, and disregard those that lack the morality required to Do No Harm, which is one of our edicts. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is against the morals of any good person to be willing to inflict harm on another. Let's get off our high encyclopediac self-appointed horse and consider the repercussions and harm of our actions, and delete this article, and reform BLP so that we aren't hurting others. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But do you accept that your conception of morality is not shared by all, and that there may not be a consensus of the community for the proposition that we are to elevate harm avoidance over all else? For my part, I've never been particularly concerned about inflicting harm on others, and certainly not when I can do so with relative impunity (I am, I imagine my friends and acquaintances would say, rather affable and certainly not without care and concern for those whom I know, but I largely fail to understand the impulse to be concerned about the well-being of individuals in whose being well one has no particularized [as against abstract] interest [at least to the extent that concern might mandate positive action]; I commonly regard that and similar impulses as following from some provincial scheme of morality beyond which we should have moved), but I recognize that that's a minority view here. What is not a minority view, though (at least if one is to consider both the letter of BLP and the spirit apprehended therein that has guided the community's BLP-related undertakings), is that, where we consider the real-world implications of our editing, we apply a balancing test, weighing the harm to the subject that attends our having an article against the deleterious effect that deleting that article might have on the project (we assume, of course, that the presence of an article that would be kept absent BLP concerns benefits our readers [or, for those of us who are a bit more selfish, us], and that its being deleted strips some benefit from those readers, for whom most editors, after all, mean to contribute; isn't the propagation of a free encyclopedia that comprises, as much as possible, the sum of the world's knowledge the goal of many here, and isn't that goal seen as morally admirable, such that the there is some grand cumulative moral benefit to our preserving content for our readers?). BLP, like any of our policies, is, to be sure, theoretically descriptive, such that changes might be undertaken at insular community-visited discussions and thereafter migrated into policy, but in practice it is of course much better that a consensus for a significant change (as, for instance, one that eliminates any balancing and subjugates categorically "encyclopedic interests" to "real-world interests") be borne out at WP:VP, WP:RfC, or WT:BLP prior to its being being used as a justification for some singular/specific action. Joe 23:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Giano (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. However, note that such an action will have wide-reaching repercussions, as there are several articles on Wikipedia whose subjects object to them (Matt Sanchez or Jenna Syken, anyone?) and deleting this one seems to endorse the strategy of threatening a lawsuit to remove an article; after all, it seems to have worked for Seth Finkelstein and Daniel Brandt too. Maybe an enterprising editor can contact Vicki Iseman and let her know that all she needs to do is make a legal threat, and she too can be removed from Wikipedia. Horologium (talk)
  • If this sets a precedent, so be it. Men were ignorant apes once, and thought the sun orbited the Earth. We grow. If people try to stop us growing, we move aside those inhibiting growth. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonsense argument and a weak red herring. We're not here to hurt BLP subjects, and anyone who endorses that manner of action is of highly doubtful moral fiber. Delete, again, per WP:IAR, and the fact that we are explicitly bound to "Do no harm". Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Good grief. This should have been deleted ages ago. And for that matter, why do we have to have all of these impossible-to-maintain, marginal biographies hanging around? I'm all for cleaning house. Further, the article is awful; it reads as a conglomeration of newspaper clippings rather than a biography. Risker (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • well I could write a full well cited bio (mostly I can't find anything much pre mid 80s and there is a gap 1995 to 7 but other than that yes) but it would probably get deleted again.Geni 23:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All well and good, Geni. The problem is that, even if you do write a balanced biography, you won't be there 24/7 to make sure that it stays that way. And BLP-watch, for all its high ideals, isn't going to be able to keep up with all the changes to all the similar articles, reviewing and verifying sources, ensuring nothing sneaks in under the wire, keeping the article well balanced. This guy isn't that important. Risker (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • check out the edit rate on the article. People adding problematical material isn't the problem. People going OH NOES legal threats is but eh thats life.Geni 23:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the article sucks right now is because no one is allowed to write anything coherent without folks going through and trying to remove anything that might be critical. The close scrutiny means that anything has to be added bit by disjointed bit, and so like many similar articles, the writing style is atrocious and inconsistent. Avruch T 01:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break 2

  • Notability is secondary to our moral imperative to do no harm to living individuals, and is secondary to WP:IAR in any event. Our old manner and habit of slogging through and leaving any old shit up, under "BLP", even if it causes undo stress and hurt, is going away. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree, but I fail to see any harm that exists from coalescing information already readily available elsewhere. The only problems that I can see ever happening with something like this is vandalism or libel, which can be solved by methods other than deletion (i.e, protection and verification of statements by reliable sources per our existing policies, which is part of the regular editing process). As such, since there are other solutions, I don't see deletion as a viable option. Celarnor Talk to me 23:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is a viable option, since we're human beings. Human beings are not to do things that cause each other hurt. Delete, per IAR, and that fact. Notability is garbage--there are more important things in life, like not hurting others. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't addressed the issue of how this hurts the subject. Celarnor Talk to me 23:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People are getting sued for the content of this article. We don't know how it's hurting him, but we know damn well it actually is. Sceptre (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And we don't need a damn doctor's note or mommy's note explaining how it's hurting him. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not but coalesce statements made by verifiable, reliable sources. Either it's IAR or change the guidelines, but I can't support the deletion of an article because things that the subject may not want well-known have become well-known as a result of publication. As long as statements are verifiable, then "Whining" is not a valid reason for deletion. Celarnor Talk to me 23:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, you going to start posting under your real name then, in your commitment to BLP being alright? Whining about policy is not a valid reason to keep. Delete per IAR and do no harm. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. My name is Dustin Jones. I'm a furry, a computer science student at the Rochester Institute of Technology, and a bisexual. BLP is fine as it is, and if someone made an article about me that adhered to BLP, I wouldn't be in any position to whine about it, since current BLP policies don't allow for libel, slander, or anything that could cause actual harm to the subject. Celarnor Talk to me 00:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All the information in the article is sourced to extremely reliable sources. If the subject disagrees with the information contained in those sources, he should take it up with the people behind those sources. We've bent over backwards for the subject, as we should with any possible BLP violation. But that's all that can be expected of us. If the subject has valid concerns, they should be addressed in the article. But "the subject doesn't want to have an article about him" is never a ground for deletion. AecisBrievenbus 23:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do no harm. Do no harm. Do no harm. Sink in yet? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It sets a dangerous precedent. At this rate, especially without evidence to support actual harm to the subject, the subject of any article can simply say "OH NOES WIKIPEDIA HURTZ MAH PUBLIC REPUTATIONZ" and get it deleted; that opens the project up to strongarming and trimming articles from a project where deletion is already a rampant phenomenon. Celarnor Talk to me 23:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • We do not know how it hurts, we do not know that it hurts, we do not know for sure that the IPs complaining at the article's talk page are really related to Di Stefano, hell, at this moment we don't know if he's actually sued anyone or anything. All we have is a claim on one website, afaik it hasn't been confirmed by Mike Godwin. And even if he has sued, it's not up to him or us to decide if he has a case, it's up to the judge. So are we gonna cave in to any rich person with a grudge? I say no. If he doesn't want the information public, he should take it up with the sources we list, not with us. We've done as much as we could do. AecisBrievenbus 00:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have made it emphatically clear that you believe that we ought to understand "do no harm" as trumping all; it is just as clear that that sentiment is not held by all editors, and I don't know that it's particularly useful to assume that those who !vote to "keep" simply don't understand your argument (such that you need to restate it beneath every "keep" !vote)—their values and views about what the project ought to be may be different from yours (they may, that is, have, as I, considered your argument and found it unpersuasive), and even as you may think them to be morally deficient because they disagree with you, you need, at the very least, to recognize that they are entitled to those opinions. Joe 00:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Notable, and no real policy supported reason to delete. Consider protection. NonvocalScream (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, policy is not a hard rule, but policy is created from current practice. Yes. The subject here is notable, and we have other methods I would prefer us use, like protection. I do believe a loss of the article here, would be a direct loss to the encyclopedia. The article is only reporting what the sources state here. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radical Party of Great Britain--Docg 23:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. AecisBrievenbus 23:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if we are to understand BLP as counseling the deletion of articles about living individuals who are of marginal notability where those individuals request deletion or where it is likely that an article might cause significant harm to a living individual, as we have of late, deletion would not be justified here; the subject is (a) well clear of the bar for marginal notability, and (b) notable (public, that is; for a broader discussion of marginal notability, one might see the very fine User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP) of his own volition and for more than one event (indeed, for a variety of events, relative to each of which he continues to be notable). The nomination, as Lawrence observes, would extend our application of BLP not insignificantly, and the community would do well to consider very carefully whether it really intends to go down that (IMHO rather pernicious) route. Joe 23:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is absurd. Wikipedia does not engage in any kind of censorship. This man is clearly notable, this is fairly obvious. What this boils down to it that a rich, powerful lawyer is bullying Wikipedia. As long as his article is sourced, neutral, and accurate, there is no reason on Earth why this should be deleted. Perhaps it may have to be permanently protected, but that is no big deal. As soon as notable people can bully us into deleting their articles, WP:NPOV is irreparably damaged. Deletions of this sort are attacks on the very nature of Wikipedia itself and must never be allowed. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 00:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've resized your two 'break's, whoever put them there was <insult removed> - they're bigger than even the headings at WP:AfD itself, let alone this subpage. Please keep an eye on formatting. +Hexagon1 (t) 00:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm as sensitive to BLP issues as any editor, but the lack of enforcement does not necessitate deletion in this instance. Eminently notable lawyer, part of Saddam Hussein's legal team. It would be a disservice to our readers not to include information on this person. That said, it would also be a disservice to have a hack piece on Stefano. Article needs clean up and many eyes watching, not deletion. -Mask? 00:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep but pare down to essential, notable dry facts and lock with a notation on the talk page that proposed changes will be done ONLY to correct mistakes and to add notable content. As a Saddam Hussein lawyer he is simply to famous to ignore. To prevent content harmful to the person from showing up on the talk page, either protect it and provide a mail drop for content changes, or regularly revert edits which contain suggested changes that are not incorporated into the article. Allowing material harmful to this person is bad, but if it can be prevented without deleting the article we should do so. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the article, and it really is already down to notable dry facts. Practically every sentence contains at least one reference. Celarnor Talk to me 00:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Essential dry facts, excluding witticisms by and about him and facts not important to his notability. These items include very brief mentions of his birth, the fact that he is a lawyer, his country of residence, the countries where he does his major work, a list of his key clients/causes, and only if notable independent of or intertwined with his legal fame, his sports, music, and political-party careers. Odds are his music and sports interests won't cross that threshhold. Total length: 1 screenful in a typical browser on a typical screen. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't the fact that he's the owner of a notable sports club/team/group/whatever worthy of mention? The album in question is of debatable notability (while it has been the subject of multiple independent reviews, it isn't especially notable itself), and the whole political party bit probably isn't particularly notable, but for the most part, what you're talking about is what the article already is. Celarnor Talk to me 00:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a case of fame vs. notable. If he were marginally notable the AfD would probably pass easily. He isn't - he's borderline famous. Since he's asking us to remove the article, it's hard to justify keeping any material that's not related to his fame. If his sports and music interests are making him famous in their own right then by all means keep them. Fame trumps BLP-subject "delete me" requests, but mere notability does not. This is just my personal opinion though. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Deleting this article just because it needs work is fallacious: hundreds of AFD candidates get kept because they were nominated over fixable improvements. This is a wiki for god's sake, an editable website. Get out there and fix things that need fixing. Second, and most importantly, think about the precedent this would set. Sue Wikimedia, and they'll reflexively delete your bio. That destroys forever our credibility and our freedom to write about whomever we wish. For pete's sake, I'd have thought Wikipedians would have more cojones than to run scared from an opportunity to correct an important (relatively speaking) biography. How about we stand up and say to those angry over their living bio: We are committed to removing libel, and creating a useful resource on notable individuals. But we will not back down from our goal, which is the sum of all human knowledge. VanTucky 00:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As far as the legal threat goes, I'm of the opinion that we as editors shouldn't worry about them. We shouldn't cave to them or work speficially in spite of them. We should listen to why they are made, and possibly seek to rectify whatever real problems with articles do exist. In this case I haven't seen that we know why the threat was made (if anyone does know, I might change my !vote because of it). And the article itself, outside of this, doesn't have problems deserving deletion. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break 3

The problem is not unverifiable material. Most of the stuff people have put into the article at various times can be traced to stuff that passes RS. The problem is which bits of the verifiable material do we actualy belive.Geni 01:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that what our guidelines on reliable sources are for? Celarnor Talk to me 01:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Protect: Subject is definitely notable. If everything is properly sourced to reputable sources, he hasn't a leg to stand on unless he sues all of them for libel too. Furthermore this should be given the strongest possible protection to prevent vandalism.
Check the edit rate on the article protection isn't needed.Geni 01:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, protection would solve the problem put forth by the nominator (i.e, harm to the subject), whether it's a real problem or an perceived one (which this does seem to be; I really don't understand the subject's complaints). It wouldn't hurt contributions to the article by established editors, and new editors could put their proposed edits on the talk page. While I don't like it because it hurts the wiki philosophy of anyone being able to edit, I think it's a better solution than deleting the article altogether, and if something has to be done, I'd rather protect it and keep it then delete it and lose it. Celarnor Talk to me 01:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Real people are negatively affected by the things they do, the lives they lead. To the extent that folks are notable and live under a public microscope (and in fact, seek it actively) they should expect that the actions they take that reflect negatively on them will be as public as the rest. Dropping an article that clearly meets all of our standards for inclusion because the subject happens to be a lawyer is a subversion of our efforts. This isn't an academic or journalistic endeavour, no, but it is a serious endeavour nonetheless. Serious enough that we shouldn't let the fear of a litigious wealthy BLP subject dictate the status of an article about him. More importantly - he's not suing you, or claiming to, he's suing me among others. I'm not worried about it - why should you be worried on my behalf? I edited that article fully aware of what I was getting into. Avruch T 01:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral personally, but I need to make a comment: I see two choices here: either keep this and continue to patrol it for BLP violations, either through permanent semi-protection or by standard watchlisting, or delete it - and every other biography of a living person that we have on the encyclopedia. Deleting this or any other article because the subject demands it (with varying levels of vituperation) is a precedent, no matter how many people say it's not, and as noted above we'll be hearing from Matt Sanchez, Rachel Marsden, and many, many more living persons who might not like the fact that something negative might appear here (those two being the most recent similar situations to come to mind). This is not a person with marginal notability; there are 40-plus inline citations to the subject. If we delete this article, we'd best be ready to tear the heart out of our biographies. Well, more time to focus on every episode of Three's Company, then, I suppose. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot another option - permanent full protection. Yes, that could cause problems of its own but it would guarentee that no edit would be made except by someone with access to admin tools. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I haven't seen any responses to repeated requests for how protection wouldn't solve the problem of adding in libellous material. Celarnor Talk to me 01:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We simply do not have policies and procedures in place to stop articles on living persons from attracting defamation. Therefore we should delete on the request of the subject. I agree that we have no moral right to keep this article, but only because we are not in a position to protect it. Semi-protection and full-protection is not enough as any admin can come along, thinking it has smoothed down, and alter the protection. It is not worth the hazzle to keep this article, or indeed any article that the subject asks to be deleted. If he is notable when he dies, we can rewrite it. --Bduke (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Bduke: We do have official and unofficial precedent for locking articles for the long haul. I've seen it with WP:ARBCOM but in theory it could come from WP:OFFICE as well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And even if we don't have precedent, precedent has to start somewhere. This article is a good candidate for permanent full protection. AecisBrievenbus 01:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, notability is not temporary. You're either notable or you aren't; you don't become less notable over time. He's notable now, and that's really the only thing that matters. We choose admins for their discretion and their ability to review relevant material before making such decisions. BLP has worked fine in the past, it works fine now, and barring any weird laws getting passed somewhere, it will continue to work fine. All material on Wikipedia must be verifiable by reliable sources; anything that isn't doesn't get into the article. Protection forces that, by having someone check the material before it gets entered. The length of that protection is up to Wikipedia; it can be made indefinite if so desired, so that's a non-argument. Regarding the deletion of material at the request of the subject, going down the road of going from being "Wikipedia: The free Enncyclopedia that anyone can edit" to "Wikipedia: The free Encyclopedia that anyone can edit, as long as you don't want to write articles about a living person" really scares me. We'd no longer be an encyclopedia of everything; we'd be an encyclopedia of everything but living people. Wikipedia's credibility would roll right on downhill into oblivion if we cave to threats like this. Celarnor Talk to me 01:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You exaggerate. We have hundreds and hundreds of articles on living people. We have had requests for deletion from a very small number of subjects, in fact probably less than the number of biographies of living people that I have started. We are indeed an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and that is why we have problems with a few BLP articles like this one. What is losing one BLP article, when we have hundreds that nobody has bothered to write yet. we are not, and never will be, complete on BLPs? --Bduke (talk) 01:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its not an exaggeration at all. Doing this would set the dangerous precedent of having content deleted on request. Wikipedia is not censored to cater to people who are in the public light and don't want certain bits of information about them well-known. There isn't any slander, libel, or material that can't be traced to a reliable source anywhere in this article. There's no reason to delete other than the subject's whining. Is that *really* a good reason to omit something from the project? Celarnor Talk to me 01:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, yes. The drama these articles lead to is in excess of anything reasonable. We could all write a new BLP in the time we spend on these issues. --Bduke (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break 4

No I am not surprised, di Stefano has always claimed he wants a fair, locked article but that appears not to be an option. Unfortunately he got blocked from editing today so is unable to express his opinion except through others, but he will know the article is up for discussion tomorrow. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, he got blocked (as did his son) for making a legal threat against several editors, all the members of the Board and both Wikimedia Foundation and Wikia. Avruch T 01:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which shows clearly the level of frustration felt by him and his family over this article. Surely we should be trying to make the article such that such legal threats don't need to arise. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See talk, he has asked for deletion. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable and the deletion rationale is outside of policy. This would set a terrible precedent. Anyone who did not want an article could have it deleted by threatening to sue. It would be preposterous and ensure that this mess would happen again. To the closing admin, before taking any action you should consult the WMF. Anything done to the article at this point could have legal implications. KnightLago (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject has enough reliable sources with substantial coverage of his career to satisfy WP:N and specifically WP:BIO. To protect him against libel, the article could be protected after any unsourced or libellous material is deleted. No convincing case case has been presented here of the alleged "harm" done by the article, or why that harm could not be removed by editing and protection, and by watchlisting by those interested in preventing WP:BLP violations. Edison (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Clearly notable, if its not NPOV and he is notable, then we fix it and protect it if necessary. I believe Jimbo has looked into this situation personally, and would've deleted if he thought that was the best course. Simple negative facts don't equal deletion. Legal threats don't equal deletion. Now maybe if WMF had a court order instructing deletion, it would be a different story. MBisanz talk 01:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, if that were the case, then it would have been deleted and scrubbed already, not brought to AfD; I'm sure you know this already, I just want to make sure everyone who comes to the AfD realizes that this hasn't happened. Celarnor Talk to me 01:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And even under the proposed WP:OptOut "An individual who has placed themselves at the forefront of public controversies in order to influence the issues involved." His actions in Giovanni_di_Stefano#2005_cases show he has sought to be at the forefront of public controversy to influence them. So even by that incredibly broad definition of reasons to remove, he'd still be kept. MBisanz talk 01:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible Keep It seems clear that the only reason it's being considered for deletion is pressure from the subject. The subject is beyond question notable, and I see no "harm" being done here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 01:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely Strong Keep Per above, deleting this is setting a very bad precedent. The subject of the article is extremely notable and there are a lot of reliable sources a google search of the subject proves that. Rgoodermote  02:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break 5 - Options so far

  • Options so far:
  • Keep and maintain current level of editor and administrative monitoring: clearly unacceptable
  • Keep and be more vigilant watching this article: Doable but time-consuming, with no guarentee the vigilance will continue.
  • Permanently semi-protect, watch article, and warn editors who insert problematic material. Doable but no guarenee the vigilance will continue and no guarantee an admin won't remove protection.
  • Permanetly semi-protect, have some high-ranking committee that administrators will respect note that the protection shall not be removed without their approval, watch article, and warn editors who insert problematic material. Doable but requires outside attention at the start. Still no guarentee the vigilance will continue.
  • Permanently protect. This just moves the problem to the Talk page and will require administrators to remove "please insert this" suggestions from the talk page. No guarentee that necessary vigilance will continue. No guarentee an administrator will not change the protection.
  • Permanetly protect and have some high-ranking committee that administrators will respect note that the protection shall not be removed without their approval. This just moves the problem to the Talk page and will require administrators to remove "please insert this" suggestions from the talk page. No guarentee that necessary vigilance will continue.
  • Delete. No guarentee article will not be re-created.
  • Delete and block re-creation. Wikipedia loses respect. The Streisand effect kicks in and the article appears all over the Internet without any history. Riots ensue on en-Wikipedia-l and the administrator mailing lists. Some editors and administrators retire in protest. It will become hall talk fodder for Wikimania.
You forgot another option; having a mail box where edits can be submitted, viewed only by admins, and inserted if they meet V and RS . This removes the problems with the talk pages. Celarnor Talk to me 02:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no good solution. Is there a least bad solution? I think the least bad solution will involve some sort of protection and heavy patrolling of the article page or if it is fully protected, the talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well...the only other one would be to delete. Ensure that the article can not be made again. But...undo that when the subject perishes. This way. The article can still be made and the chance of a lawsuit is gone. Because the subject no longer goes under BLP. I do want this article to be kept. But the potential for a lawsuit is to great. Rgoodermote  02:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As regular editors, it isn't our place to be concerned about lawsuits; if the Foundation decides the possibility of a lawsuit is too great, they will intervene regardless of what we here have done. Deleting it now on that premise would be inane; if the possibility of a lawsuit is the ONLY reason for deletion, as seems to be the case here, then we should keep the article as notable, verifiable, and a good example of a BLP article until the Foundation decides that it isn't the case. Celarnor Talk to me 02:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No we do have to worry about lawsuits. If the foundation were to be sued it could be potentially harmful. But your idea is much better than mine..and better than the options labeled above. Rgoodermote  02:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break 6

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Giovanni_di_Stefano&oldid=206808834"