Clearly notable folks have articles that stay despite the obvious risk of tendentious editing. Giovanni di Stefano is one of those. I have no problem monitoring this article for uncited and controversial additions, and apparently neither do you and a number of other people. The issue of deleting BLPs on people of marginal notability is separate - clearly the proposal as written (and intended) wouldn't apply to di Stefano at this point. There is no way the AfD can be interpreted as "no consensus." At least its more or less out of the way - there can be no question in the future that this article ought to remain, despite the risks outlined in Doc's essay. Bonus for the project is that the GdS issue provided the impetus to change policy so that many other marginal notability BLPs can be deleted, so no one has to watch them forever.
Nathan
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
It gets better - there is a proposal on WT:BLP to change the normal operation of a consensus discussion so that, for BLP articles, its backwards. If this proposal makes its way into policy, the outcome will be this: if an editor nominates a BLP article for deletion, and no
consensus
for deletion is achieved, it will be deleted. I personally can't see how that makes sense, but apparently a few of the folks on WT:BLP can. Maybe we need a new process - Articles for Keep, where all nominated articles are deleted unless enough people come by to make argue for keeping them.
Nathan
I can certainly understand. We have about 200 folks who want to keep Giovanno di Stefano, a monstrosity that is entirely uncontrollable. I wonder how many of them are willing to spend hours, week, months, years monitoring it.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l