The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per a very strong consensus. Read this rationale before going to DRV. According to the BLP policy, controversial information that is unreferenced needs to be removed aggressively, including deletion if necessary. However, such information can, and should, stay if it can be well-referenced by reliable sources. It cannot be argued that this person has represented many controversial figures. We are simply reporting those facts. As was pointed out below, deleting this article would set a precedent, that subjects can request deletion of their articles simply because they feel they harm their reputations. This is not true. As long as the BLP is well referenced, and all of the information can be verified as correct, there is no reason to delete the article. People make their own reputations. Wikipedia simply presents the facts. Quoting User:Avruch: "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." Quoting Jimbo: "Those questions [about di Stefano's qualifications] have been covered in multiple, independent, non-trivial, reliable sources, and in all such cases our job is to report accurately on what those sources have said, neither endorsing nor rebutting their views, but just neutrally summarizing what is out there." To address the concerns of legal threats, I would remind everyone that our policies are very clear about how subjects of BLPs can handle concerns about their articles (see here). In the event a lawsuit is filed, such is not a concern of the editing community at large. At that point the WMF will take over, invoking the authority of WP:OFFICE, and will handle all concerns as only they can. The OFFICE policy exists so that we, as editors, are insulated from legal action. We have an excellent legal representative, and the WMF is certainly well-equipped to handle these situations. If such action is needed, they will take care of it, and nobody here outside of Jimbo himself has any ability to do a damn thing about it.

Now, if at this point, you still feel this needs to be brought to WP:DRV, you are entitled to do so. However, please ensure that you have a very strong reason for doing so. There is a very strong consensus against the reasoning brought up for this deletion discussion, so you're going to need something completely different and considerably more convincing to even have a chance of overturning this. If you do not have such a reason, but still feel something needs to be done, I would highly recommend seeking protection of the article, an alternate solution proposed by several users in this discussion. I will not protect the article myself, as such is outside of the scope of this discussion, however protection would ensure that any information added is done with a full consensus and meets policy.

Questions or concerns regarding this close may be brought up on my talk page - please keep everything in one section if you do so. I will be in-and-out through the rest of the day, but will make an effort to respond to any questions offered. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni di Stefano[edit]

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]

  • Nothing to do with that, ST47. Human people are more important than our work. Delete. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 22:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this person has problems with the truth, then why is it our responsibility to cover it up? There have been no problems in the 2 days it's been semiprotected. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 22:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is we're not allowed to cause people hurt. Per that, delete, under Ignore All Rules. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 22:57, 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]
  • What about hurting people by not haveing the article?Geni 23:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonsense and not a debatable matter. We have no authority or right to cause individuals undo harm or stress. Our "mission" is secondary to that. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:07, 19 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]
  • That doesn't matter, Geni. If an article of ours about someone is able to upset them this much, what moral right do we have to continue our actions? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 22:57, 19 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]
  • Perhaps you ought to stop trolling BLP subjects by leaving breadcrumbs in every comment on where people can find information on them that is negative and upsetting. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh I think di Stefano could find most of the stuff I'm talking about and well most of the other parties to the mid 90s stuff are dead.Geni 23:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you should stop while you're behind, Geni. Show some respect for a BLP subject, before you aren't able to edit anymore. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:15, 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]
  • 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]
  • Still, that doesn't matter. What moral right do we have to do what we do, if it clearly upsets and hurts people? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 22:59, 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 this encyclopedia, to provide free knowledge, to try to cover up the truth. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 23:04, 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]
  • 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]
  • And by ignoring the truth, you're acting in much the same way as those who censured anyone who proposed that the earth orbited the sun. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 23:16, 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]
  • And we're not here to cave in to vague threats either. AecisBrievenbus 01:13, 20 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]
  • 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]
  • Fuck policy. We dictate to it, not the other way around. Policy wonks will be beaten until the encyclopedia or morale improves. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:54, 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]
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]
The Dundee united thing was what really got his name in the papers before all the legal stuff got going.Geni 02:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think being a member of Hussein's legal team makes him waaaaaay more than notable. Celarnor Talk to me 02:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
  • 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]
You also forgot WP:BLP-LOCK (stub it down to name rank and serial number and permanent protect), I think. ++Lar: t/c 04:30, 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. Servers aren't cheap and the bandwidth bill must be...huge. But that is another story. Your idea is much better than mine..and better than the options labeled above. Rgoodermote  02:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course it would be harmful. But Wikipedia's regular editors aren't involved in the Foundations legal processes, and we aren't the legal counsel. We aren't qualified, and it isn't our place, to decide whether or not we should delete this just based on the possibility of a lawsuit. Celarnor Talk to me 02:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually foundation legal processes are a failure of we regular editors, as volunteers here lets reduce the legal problems as much as we can. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
O I get it..sorry I was lost for a second there. You probably said it directly earlier but I was to dense at the moment to notice it. Again sorry for that. Rgoodermote  02:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this article had been permanently protected the 3 times I recently asked there would be no afd today, and the afd is indeed a direct result of the failure of those WP:RPP requests. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been going through the edit history, and I don't see any slander/libel/etc; I just don't see how page protection would do anything. Heck, I don't even see why this is here, other than the request for removal. I mean, it could use some cleanup, but there's nothing wrong with it that I can see. Celarnor Talk to me 02:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the subject and his family do see problems, and to be honest so do I. Have you ever had to compile a CV. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I have, but what does that have to do with Wikipedia? Could you give a short list of the problems that the subject and the subject's family have with the article? There seems to be a lot of QQing on the talk pages, but I can't pin down exactly what the perceived issues are. Celarnor Talk to me 02:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that it is the legal issues that are the problem, and nothing else, the alleged accusations and convictions and the way we deal with the way he was barred from seeing a client because of a bad judgment by a prison official. To be honest if a subject of an article is expressing distress over his article then the first line of defence is we wikipedia editors. And I am a long term editor at this article with no admin or other eg OTRS rights, (what you might call on the streets of wikipedia). Thanks, SqueakBox 02:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, we're the first logical contact; but any help from us that he could have gotten was thrown out the window when he made legal threats, which is one of our biggest no nos. The legal avenues are now the purview of the Foundation. The issue here is whether or not we should delete this article just because of a legal threat, and I think that "Legal threat = Delete article" is a bad place to go. Celarnor Talk to me 02:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree in the sense that IMO we are not debating this purely because of the legal threats (which are a no no) but because of what caused the legal threats. if I made legal threats on behalf of di Stefano I would not expect to be listened to either but neither \Lawrence nor I have ever counselled such a path. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again , what caused the legal threats? There is no information available on this that I can readily see. Those should be rationale for deletion, not the fact that legal threats were made. Celarnor Talk to me 03:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty much PER. Do you have anything new to add to the discussion/
That is being done, in spite of di Stefano having been banned today (within our policies, as Avruch rightly points out elsewhere). The issue with a long term lock is to which version, di Stefano appears to em to not so much object to an article as much as to object ot anarticle that violates our nPOV and bLP policies. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So then why are discussing deletion instead of how best to protect the article from unverifiable material? Celarnor Talk to me 03:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simple answer, because the protection arguments have failed. Having made multiple requests perhaps it is my failure at expressing the argument (I am not a lawyer) but your input on protection is welcome (given I don't see an uninvolved admin endorsing delete based on the early stages of the afd) at the GDS talk page. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its semi-protected now; is there evidence that established editors (the only people who can edit semi-protected articles) are inserting problematic material? If so, full protection may be in order, and shouldn't be difficult to get. Celarnor Talk to me 03:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No disclaimers on articles or images, or we have the situation described on Wikipedia:GFDL_standardization due to GFDL legal restrictions. At the bottom of every page there is already a link to Wikipedia:General_disclaimer. I quote "None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators, or anyone else connected with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information (...)" --Enric Naval (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that the quote above continues as "(...) or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages." so please don't make the argument that someone could use the information on the article to hurt someone, since we are not responsible for those actions --Enric Naval (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the relevance of this section? --Relata refero (disp.) 09:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm refering to the sentence "put a note on top of the talkpage saying "the subject objects to the contents of this article"" on your comment above [1]. I have seen other controversial articles where well-intentioned users place disclaimers which are inmediately taken down, and I wanted to prevent a discussion about using a disclaimer that would be doomed from the start. Sorry for not making it more clear. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have a long-standing guideline suggesting we avoid disclaimers in articles. I don't see the applicability to that sentence since (a) I was talking about a talkpage and (b) its not a disclaimer, its information. We already state it if the subject has editied the article, this is not very different. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see that I misinterpreted your comment. Apologies for the confusion. I found the guideline, specifically Wikipedia:No_disclaimers_in_articles#What_are_disclaimers.3F and your notice is really not a disclaimer, and it would be on the talk page anyways. Apologies again. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's about money, then the call should come from WP:OFFICE. If it's about balancing respecting someone's wishes and making a good encyclopedia, then we as editors should make the call. Unless WP:OFFICE gets involved, we as editors should make the exact same decision we would if he asked nicely and didn't threaten or file a lawsuit. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • protection has repeatly failed to stop the whitewashing.Geni 11:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate? If it has been elevated to full protection, then why was it downgraded to semi, and why isn't there any record of it? Under full protection, an article can only include edits that are made by administrators, so users must submit requests with those edits. I don't see any record of full protection, and until that fails (I can't see how it can, but there's a first time for everything), there's no reason to delete. Celarnor Talk to me 11:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Davewild's ideas are good: since the office could step in if they wanted to, why should we be doing something in their name when they haven't? We don't delete articles simply because the subjects want them to be deleted, and since this guy is plainly notable (can't imagine how you couldn't be notable with all those good references), and since there are editors watching this for BLP problems, I can't see how/why this needs to be deleted. By the way, as an admin I can tell you that the last time it was fullprotected was 20:29, 12 March 2008 by User:AGK, and it expired on 16 March. That's the third time it's been fully protected this year: on 28 January for a week, and on 11 February for a month. Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? This is pretty much "Sure, delete it, why not?", and doesn't really add anything to the discussion. Celarnor Talk to me 20:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is your interpretation, even though one of our 5 pillars is do n o harm, and while that is an ideal to try and not do harm to living people is a moral imperative, otherwise we make ourselves more important than those we cover. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in the five pillars does it say "harm". Our pillars are 'being an encyclopedia', NPOV, free content with open editability, good editor conduct during the editing process (COI, AGF, NPA, etc), and no firm rules. Celarnor Talk to me 18:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he was intending to cite BLP as one of the four basic article standard policies. But the no harm is just one sentence within that policy and is obviously up for interruption as well. What isn't is that deleting this article would undermine the credibility of Wikipedia as a source and set a precedent we would regret for years. SorryGuy  Talk  18:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you any evidence to back that up. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have any evidence? Of course I don't you and you know it. But I do have logic, and knowing the way which this project is perceived by outside observers, I would say it is a more than fair inference. Do you disagree? SorryGuy  Talk  18:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Causality and logic. We give in to whining about an article that is perfectly in line with every relevant policy and guideline on the laughable basis that the subject doesn't like negative things known about him. What do you think that suggests to other people who have articles that report things about them that they'd rather not have known? Celarnor Talk to me 18:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know how many articles will get deleted just because someone is "offended" by them? I'm sure you'd change your tune if one of Richard Nixon's grandkids asked for all references to Watergate in the Nixon article to be deleted, because he was emotionally "hurt" by them. The same thing goes for any political figure with something to cover up; trial lawyers, especially this one, do not have any sacred status above anyone anywhere in the encyclopedia, and the fact that this AFD is even happening is a blemish on Wikipedia. A few more examples of potential articles that would be deleted if this fell through: George W. Bush, Kosovo War, Jeremiah Wright, David Ayers, Adolf Hitler, gulags, Joseph Stalin, Final Solution, Lee Harvey Oswald, OJ Simpson, swastika, et cetera. We can't very well erase them from the face of history.--WaltCip (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on why negative information shouldn't be included in BLP articles? It's not 'minutae'; it's not like we're discussing the man's subscription to magazines or what he does in the privacy of his own home; pretty much everything in this article is about his public life and things that anyone could find with a simple google search on him. If you're saying that all negative information should be removed from BLPs, could you go into your rationale for this a little more? If we're to include only information that paints the subject in a positive light, we're no longer making an encyclopedia; we're making a PR outlet. Even if we want to do that, there are more than a few problems regarding what we decide as positive, the method for deciding who gets to make that decision, etc. To catalogue information about someone, everything has to be included, not just the positive. Celarnor Talk to me 23:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't like the idea of keep tabs on living people. The notability requirements keeps getting lower and lower. People would be beside themselves if the government kept tabs on living people like this. If everything is available from google as you say why do we need an article? Basically our database of living people is either hagiographies or defamatory POS articles especially among the marginally notable. Let's do everyone a favor and delete the biographies of semi and non notable persons who simply don't want their bio here. --DHeyward (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That makes perfect sense; are you saying you believe that description applies to the subject of this article? Because if so I part company with you there. --John (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, This subject is waaaaaaaaaay beyond notable as a legal figure with international experience; as a member of Hussein's defense team alone, I think the notability bar is polevaulted over with several lengths of pole to spare. That aside, however, Everything on Wikipedia can be found by searching Google or a visit to the library. If, as you say, we shouldn't have an article based on those reasons, then why have any articles at all? Why not just let people go the old route and search for everything themselves? Celarnor Talk to me 05:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? We choose admins for their discretion and ability to deal with things like this. If one of them includes something proposterous, tell them and they'll probably remove it immediately, and if not, you can make a motion to desysop them for their stupidity, and in the meantime, a more reasonable admin can remove it. I don't see the problem with this, could you go into more detail about why it's bad? Celarnor Talk to me 23:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was trying to suggest a solution that was within the bounds of existing policy, yet offered more protection BLP-wise than ((editprotected)). Needless to say, there are more appropriate venues for discussing problems with page protection policy, or questions of admin discretion in general. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 00:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its the locking of the talk page I am objecting to, not the locking of the article page, as it would appear to then give admins editing privileges (which would set an uneasy precedent and I do not think an admin whio knows nothing aboput the article should get precedent over the regulars who have been working the article a long time. It would just be a reciope for disaster. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Yeah, that's a terrible idea. People wouldn't be able to collaborate anymore, which is a fairly central component of WP. Celarnor Talk to me 00:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Squeakbox, there is still an overwhelming number of high-level users requesting deletion, Fred Bauder being one of them.--WaltCip (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plus there are many interesting comments re BLP. Who will take the Wikipedia:Responsible Editing Pledge. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is alright, just let it run through the rest of today and once tomorrow hits, I am confident a non-involved admin will close it according to the clear consensus established. It is best we do that so there are no grounds for DRV. At any rate, though, we should probably keep this discussion to the talk page. SorryGuy  Talk  01:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • And I'll be laughing all of the way to the bank if an admin unflinchingly closes it as delete.--WaltCip (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Doing so will open up a whole new can of worms. So keeping it would probably be the best bet. If it is deleted some one is going to bring it up at deletion review. Rgoodermote  03:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just one more thought about a deletion. A deletion will not be in the interest of Wikipedia OR the subject. I would suggest that because the subject is often in the media, someone will come along and think 'that's funny, I can't understand why there's no article about him on Wikipedia', then a new article will be written without the careful research that has gone into the current one. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would have to be salted. certainly not closing early, IMO, means there is no need for a DRV to keep the article and this appears to be the community feeling. Hopefully we who work on the article can find a decent version and permanently lock it. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More