Quoting Luna <lunasantin(a)gmail.com>om>:
On 10/26/07, joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu
<joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:
...it would be an interesting position to be in where
someone's article getting deleted led to enough noise in the press that it
could be then recreated (I suppose there is a serious [[WP:BEANS]] here).
It could be something for us to take into account, no? If the deletion of an
article on grounds of notability draws widespread and/or mainstream media
attention, it seems worth taking a second look. There's still questions of
maintainability (if all we can reliably source about a person is "media got
pissed off when Wikipedia deleted their article," BLP is still a pretty dire
concern, say).
Just a quick thought.
-Luna
As I've attempted to explain before, BLP as a privacy concern doesn't
make sense
if the person wants an article. There are exceptional cases like the
Archimedes
Plutonium example- Archie wanted an article as far as people could tell but
he's also likely has a serious mental problem. However, it doesn't make sense
in general to make such a BLP claim when the person wanted an article.
Furthermore, I suspect that if this sort of situation did end up occurring a
likely side effect would be additional material getting included in the
reliable sources since no one is going to write an article of the form "Random
No Name X had their Wikipedia article deleted. And we aren't going to tell you
anything aboutX at all."