Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giovanni di Stefano

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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

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]
  • 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]
  • Delete per the very well argued nom. ViridaeTalk
  • Support deletion regretfully, based on ongoing chronic BLP violations, and re nominator. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Sceptre (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keepThe subject of the article has recived protection above and beyond what BLP requires. Don't belive me? Run a search on the name on say a british newspaper database between 1990 and 2000.Geni 22:55, 19 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]
  • Delete Enough. We can't maintain marginal bios in a neutral accurate form, so we should delete them.--Docg 22:56, 19 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Delete per nomination. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep. Subject is extremely notable. BLP violations can be dealt with via semi-protection or protection if it gets too far out of hand. Celarnor Talk to me 23:31, 19 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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, not a very clever edit - 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]
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]
  • 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]
  • Delete The article has been subject to repeated insertions of libelous material over an extended period of time. There seems no way of controlling it due to poor press coverage of the subject. Fred Talk 00:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment and most of it outdated coverage at that, the coverage of the last 4 years is much more positive. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That requires constant patrolling, deletion of libelous edits, and if necessary even oversighting, but not deletion. AecisBrievenbus 00:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Been there, done that, and been over-ruled by Jimbo. Fred Talk 00:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wish. Its just not working. I seriously would like to have an article but we have tried so may solutions, Fred has deleted the article (allowing for a re-creation), Jimbo has got involved and it is is as bad as ever. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • So we just give up? AecisBrievenbus 00:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well I haven't so far (basically because the site is so popular), and I don't know all the answers, but I have been involved in this article as an editor for 8 months now. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment and Question for Fred Why is deleting better than permanent protection? As for the reverse: Permanent protection's advantage over deletion is it achieves the goal of preventing libel on this page while leaving encyclopedic content available. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is special about this case that makes protection and/or a dropbox an unacceptable solution for the problems of insertion of unverifiable material like it does in other BLP cases? Celarnor Talk to me 00:53, 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]
  • 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]
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]
  • 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]
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]
  • 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. 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]
  • Keep and permanently protect. I don't think wikipedia can give into sue happy individuals without thoroughly damaging the credibility of the encyvlopedia as a whole. However, we can and should do everything possible to prevent fraud, libel, and slander.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 02:19, 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]
  • Delete - per nom. Plain and simple - Alison ❤ 02:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty much PER. Do you have anything new to add to the discussion/
  • Keep, as far as I am concerned, no valid rationale for deletion has yet been presented for this article. Take out anything even remotely libelous, and protect the page if necessary. If any negative claims about this individual are properly sourced to a reliable source, we are not doing them any harm, and we are not legally liable. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment, and to be reasonable, we should attmept to ascertain from Mr di Stefano just which parts of the article he believes to be untrue or unjustified, and look at resolving any issues with those portions of the article in good faith. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
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]
  • Keep Agree with above. Just taking down a BLP because of threats sets a bad precedent. The man is clearly notable. OptimistBen (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Are you prepared to delete David Irving, which claims that this living historian "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence"? I sure hope not, no matter how much it hurts him. We do our best to produce good NPOV articles about notable living people, not delete the article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Call me nuts but 'Delete this article or I'll sue you into the stone age' just rubs me the wrong way. Fuck 'im. HalfShadow (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Congratulations, you have just ranked basic human dignity below spite. ViridaeTalk 03:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, I'm not the one throwing a 50-million Euro hissy-fit because I don't like the fact that my name is in print. Whatever. HalfShadow (talk) 03:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, he has just ranked the goal of including information on all notable material above caving in to unfounded legal threats made in bad faith. Celarnor Talk to me 03:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and
    • put a note on top of the talkpage saying "the subject objects to the contents of this article".
    • Suggest it be edited only by WP:Editors willing to make difficult edits.
    • When the foundation is in trouble, Mike Godwin will ride to the rescue, and suitable action will be taken on the article. That is not our problem.
    • Any concern for the individual's privacy appears to be unfounded in this case, as this is manifestly not someone who has sought privacy or retirement from public affairs, merely someone who wishes to control information.
    • We should not now, or ever, while we claim to be an encyclopaedia, reinforce the notion that legal threats will affect the community's decisionmaking in specific cases. That would be justifiably destructive of our reputation.
    • I have reviewed the talkpage and I don't see a coherent campaign to keep the article slanted, merely discussion of reliable sources and their interpretation. (This does not surprise me in the least.) With some individuals, of whom coverage has been largely negative, we do indeed have this problem. That doesn't mean we delete all such articles, or all articles where the Western, wealthy individual concerned threatens to sue. This nomination has been a waste of time. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:33, 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]
  • Strong Keep I remember a case just like this a little while ago for the artist Jay Brannan he is by far less notable then this fellow in my opinion and we didn't let his article get deleted either. To quote another user in that AfD discssion(for you people who don't feel like clicking the words Jay Brannan), "Strong Keep - we don't delete articles just because subjects of the article don't like what's been written about them. Further, I'd say you were out of line by removing sourced content and then nomming the article for deletion. You should restore the content immediately. [. . .] it does not matter what the subject of the article has an interest in. We don't pander to article subjects "wants" in articles about them.[. . .]The person, short of pointing out libelous statements, has no special prerogative to exclude certain details. We do not allow this priviledge to Ann Coulter, we do not allow it to Jimmy Wales, we allow it to nobody. It is a red-herring argument that only issues *related* to notability are included. We include a biography based on notability, but once included, each statement does not need to pass notability to be included.- ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 20:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)" I think that sums it up well, just becuase a person doesn't want something written about them, doesn't mean it can't happen. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we need to keep all the articals in it that belong in it, especilly ones on notable potentally history changeing persons. This is my humble opinion. I hope you don't mind me quoteing you allstar, and the [. . .] are sections taken out that applyed to Jay Brannan that wouldn't apply here, but the link is there if you want to check--Pewwer42  Talk  03:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was bound to happen sooner or later. Someone with enough resources to mount a creditable suit was going to call us on our (improved from where it was last year but still) ineffective BLP policy. And what happens? People start talking about standing firm against legal threats regardless of the consequences. The consequences are, someone has been injured by the long term failure of our processes to ensure NPOV, balance and fairness and someone is going to do something about it. Have you keep voters internalised what a judgement of 50 M euros would do to the foundation? I have. Game over. No... not worth it. I like standing on principle and playing the martyr as much as the next guy (ok, maybe not quite as much as my friend Giano :) ) but geez. delete or failing that, WP:BLP-LOCK (if that's not a shortcut, it should be!)... ++Lar: t/c 04:24, 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]
  • Keep This is all referenced, it looks like a good article to me. Don't give in to bullying!! - ђαίгснгм таιќ 05:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is nothing wrong with this article BUT...... If the foundation should decide otherwise then let them delete this. We are just volunteers, let the foundation handle the legal issues and deletion of this. Screw process and policy, just ignore all rules. Why are we giving this guy this much attention anyway? EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Forget that. Keep per Guy below and Jimbo's response. Apparently the lawsuit is just gossip, at least for now, and Godwin is on the case so I'm sure we are in good hands here. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the Foundation has a perfectly qualified person to evaluate the nature and merits of legal threats, unlike the vast majority of participants in this discussion, myself included. If they decide action must be taken due to legal issues, they can and will do so. Until and unless that occurs, we have a well-referenced article on a relatively public person. Granted, much of that person's notoriety is negative in nature, but that in itself is not a BLP violation. The subject is also a good distance past marginal or questionable notability, so the question of deletion upon request really does not come into play here, as that should only be used in cases where the subject is on the edge of the notability requirements, not well past them. Finally, there is no invasion of privacy here—all the information in the article that I see has previously been reported by reliable, easily-accessible sources, so we are not exactly bringing to light information the world would otherwise never see. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: If we had to delete everything someone didn't like, we would be deleting about everything on Wikipedia. If people or organizations are so concerned about what they did wrong, then stop doing wrong things. If an article is backed up by legit sources, so be it. If not, remove the false information and be done. If it is to the point of false info being added constantly, then protect it. But don't play into censorship. If we do this for this article, then more of these kinds of requests will continue. DragonFire1024 (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; protect if necessary. Deletion is not superior to long-term protection and that should be employed if necessary. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Borderline cases should be deleted on request. This is not a borderline case. Garion96 (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per being more than enough notable per wikipedia standards, being covered on BBC, CNN, The Guardian, etc. If there are BLP violatons, they can be removed, and if there are re-included faster than editors can handle them, the article can be protected. Arguments about him making legal threats are out of the reach of a deletion debate and should be handled by the wikipedia foundation --Enric Naval (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: he certainly seems to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If the article needs to be deleted for legal reasons, that's for the Foundation to decide, not the community. --Carnildo (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand Lawrence's concerns, but di Stefano is much more than just notorious, he has (unlike many problem biography subjects) been the primary subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources. Most of these sources do a very poor job of concealing their feelings for him - the BBC described him as "the Devil's advocate" in a lengthy profile, for example - and several editors have been swayed by that into creating serious issues with this article, but in this case it is possible, with care, to avoid that. Long-term protection would be a good idea, but deletion is not, I think, supportable given the level of coverage and the highly-publicised links with numerous notorious clients. I'm afraid I cannot accept that this article is hurting di Stefano and his family any more than the press coverage of his own work does. If you choose to represent Saddam Hussein, Kenneth Noye, Arkan, Slobodan Milosevic and Harold Shipman, I would think that you might be expected to have a fairly thick skin, or at least a good deal of self-confidence. I find it very hard to believe that a family who accepts his quite public statements of friendship with some pretty unsavoury characters, would be much worried about what Wikipedia says about him. And I do not think I am exactly reckless when it comes to WP:BLP articles. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Beeb did not give him this nickname, but their article does suggest that di Stefano embraces it, noting that it is based upon some of his own outlandish comments. — CharlotteWebb 12:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding just the nickname, there is nothing negative about the phrase "the Devil's advocate"... it is an honorable thing to "defend the undefendable" in a system of justice. My understanding is that Mr. di Stefano's primary concerns have to do with questions raised about his legal qualifications, and about reports alleging that he was himself imprisoned for some time, etc. Those questions 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.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • (ec)Plus, if he himself has responded to those allegations, his responses should be given reasonable prominence. As Jimbo says, the way to deal with the problems here is to apply our policies as carefully as possible. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was referring specifically to where the BBC (as reliable a source as one will find anywhere) says "The nickname Devil's Advocate is a neat one, given he once said he would defend Adolf Hitler or Satan" (which he well ought to do — that's what they handsomely pay him for). Then it says "But when put to him, he takes it [the nickname] as a compliment...", so in short I agree with you Jimbo. — CharlotteWebb 12:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For my thoughts on BLP generally, see this WikiEN-l post. To say "we are incapable of writing this article fairly" is patently false. We plainly can. What we seem incapable of is to maintain it in a fair state. We have an excellent tool (protection) that should deal with this. Deletion is an unnecessary over-reaction. Sam Korn (smoddy) 10:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC) 10:00, 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]
      • And... I confess to being slightly confused by your argument, or indeed lack thereof. If we tend to being overly generous to a subject, that isn't a problem in the vast majority of cases. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a finished product. (An edit conflict allows me to add "what Celarnor said") Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JzG (!) and per WP:YOUHAVEGOTTOBEKIDDING, notability in spades, etc. Obvious breeching experiment by the most famous/notorious trial lawyer this side of Johnnie Cochran. Direct further inquiries to Mike Godwin (whoever he is ). — CharlotteWebb 12:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is very very clear as Guy says above. (Sorry Guy, I can't believe I'm saying that!) We should also not create a precedent where taking legal action makes us delete an article. Let the OFFICE and Mike Godwin deal with the case as required. Davewild (talk) 12:12, 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]
  • strong keep- I disagree that wikipedia hasn't kept this article more favourable to the subject than it "should" be. And he is very notable, I haven't actually seen many articles people claim to have borderline notability with even a twentieth of his 1,470 articles on google news, which usually indicates reliable sources.[2]. But reliable sources are being kept out of this article, because the person doesn't like to see what they say. He won't succeed in sueing us for what reliable sources say. And there can't be many more well-watched articles than this one.Merkin's mum 13:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; "...it is an honorable thing to "defend the undefendable" in a system of justice." Indeed. In France, that honourable role is fulfilled by Jacques Vergès, and in my own country by fi:Aarno Arvela. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, whilst the fact that he's launching legal action is awesome, he wants it deleted and I'm happy for us to do that. -- Naerii 14:36, 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]
  • keep is clearly a willing public figure. See User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP for some relevant issues as to this sort of thing. The short answer is that while we might in some limited cases delete people of borderline notability when they request it, di Stefano is not of borderline notability. He is a highly public figure, his involvement in public has been completely willing, taking on controversial cases and talking about them and other issues in the press. He is a prominent individual. I personally think what he does is good work that overall needs to be done by someone. That makes me somewhat more sympathetic to his request than I might be if I disagreed with him, but even given that he's simply way too notable for a reasonable deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IAR is for special cases, this case is no different from any other BLP about a controversial public figure. --Tango (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: subject in question is of proven notability, nuff said. -- Roleplayer (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a shame that he's personally threatening our editors (including the nominator of this AfD), but most of us aren't qualified to respond to this gentleman's legal threats--that's WMF's job, and AfD is no substitute for that. In the meantime, any encylopedia should be permitted to offer neutrally written, non-defamatory bios of very famous people, now matter how truculent they appear to be.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He is notable and as far as I can tell all (that's ALL) claims in the article are properly sourced. If he doesn't like being on Wikipedia, tough luck. Whatever happened to free speech? The article is not attacking him in anyway.  Channel ®    16:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you're the defense attorney in a case as notable as that of Saddam Hussein, then yes, you're notable. (See e.g. F. Lee Bailey and Johnnie Cochran.) Now, to be sure, the article has some POV problems, but the way to address those is by fixing them, not deleting the entire article. On the subject of legal threats: not our problem as ordinary editors, and not an AFD issue, either. If there's a credible legal threat lodged against the WMF over this article, I expect to see a WP:OFFICE action or some such. Until then, we should just keep plugging away trying to craft a proper BLP article. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Deletion would set a standing precedent for any lawyer with money to blow and an agenda to push to simply go to Wikipedia and sue to have any article removed for libelous content.--WaltCip (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The precedent setting would be too great and destructive to Wikipedia. There are times when we must stand our ground or else fold our tents and go somewhere else. He is here because of his own notability which he created. We ought carefully enforce BLP like we would with anyone else. -JodyB talk 17:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If he meets the notability guidelines and policies, then keep. All because he doesn't like or want his article is not a reason to delete it: we should not bow down to him. Improve the article if it needs fixing, and protect it if we need to, but don't delete. Acalamari 18:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - does it stop with the article? I asked this in the Daniel Brandt case (and the Encyclopedia Dramatica case) and no-one seemed to appreciate that such decisions affect more than just the article. Are we allowed to menition the people concerned while editing other articles or not? Do a search for "Giovanni di Stefano" in Wikipedia articles, or look at what links here. Currently, di Stefano is mentioned in the following articles: Tariq Aziz, Kenneth Noye, The Devil's Advocate (that reference should probably go), 2007 Royal blackmail plot, Private Eye (maybe Lawrence should read that article to find out what Private Eye is), Jeremy Bamber, Hawley Harvey Crippen, Ford (HM Prison) (erm...), Trial of Saddam Hussein, Irchester (do we really need to say where he lives or used to live?), John Marsden (lawyer), Radical Party of Great Britain, and JustCarmen. Given that some of these articles will never be deleted (though some will be), the logic of the nomination requires that all mention of di Stefano be excised from Wikipedia. I freely admit that some people should only ever be a collection of mentions in Wikipedia, as opposed to an article, but those worried about BLP defamations of di Stefano will have to watch these articles in which he is mentioned as well - are they prepared to do that? Just deleting his article will not make the problem go away. Carcharoth (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - As the creator of the article (in its original very bland form) I thought I ought to remain impartial on the subject of AFD. But a few thoughts: a casual read of the article surely establishes the subject's notability on a number of levels IMHO. Granting that, there is the matter of the article's quality -- its neutrality, balance etc. Although there is too much minor detail for an encyclopedia article, I would say that on balance it does present a fair view of the subject who is after all controversial. (The excess of minor detail has partly arisen from repeated demands for more citations). So, if one grants that the article in some modified form is suitable for WP inclusion, it becomes a matter of whether his biography should be withdrawn because of his legal threats. The article has received a lot of close editorial attention and consequently seems to contain nothing that is prima facie libellous, nothing that is not supported by the citations used which are mostly reputable media sources. Should Wikipedia then accede to the demands of a litigous individual? There are two main arguments. A: Withdraw the article to preempt legal/financial problems for the Foundation. B: Keep the article to establish a precedent for independence from interference or threat. Just a few thoughts to develop the debate... --mervyn (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It follows notability guidelines. Gary King (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To quote from the nominator's own user page:

    All hail Neutral Point Of View--we serve it, from the Wikimedia Foundation on down, and no one has any authority or right to supercede it for anything or anyone.

  • The article as it stands currently is impeccably sourced (thanks to the hard work of many editors), and clearly demonstrates the large amount of media attention recieved. This is certainly no "borderline notability" subject like Daniel Brandt. To delete it or gut it of well-sourced and appropriate facts at the request of the subject, would be to betray NPOV and fail our users. What is more, it would set a remarkably dangerous precedent - where the mere threat of legal action is enough to overcome our core principles. That said, special care should be taken with this article, and I would recommend permanent or long term semi-protection. the wub "?!" 20:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Sam Korn's notes about the article's problem and how to solve it. Protection of the article is the best course. The fact that Mr. di Stefano represents some of the world's most notorious people does not reflect badly upon him, since having someone step up to defend them is vital to a criminal justice system. If there is a potential for litigation against Wikipedia over the article, then that is an issue which the foundation, will need to deal with since a volunteer community has no competence or authority to deal with legal matters. [The community does deal with copyvios, and it does strive to remove libel from BLPs, but this is still done as a volunteer effort, and an individual editor is not under any obligation to deal with such issues on any single case.] Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the consensus is clearly Keep. This is a matter for the community, whether it wishes to support the principles of Wikipedia or not. The arguments against keeping this articles are arguments against the foundation of Wikipedia: NPOV and V. A encyclopedia that gives in to threats by the subject of an article is not worth existing, because it will have become unreliable. we are here to provide verifiable information about encyclopedia-worthy subjects. We operate under US law, and the subject of this article is a public figure. For public figures, our role is provide verifiable and relevant information. whether they find it pleasant is not our concern. If it were, how could we cover the unpleasant side of public affairs at all? And most public affairs is somewhat unpleasant to at least some of those involved. The role of the WMF board is to support the project. If they should wish to change the project into a source for positive public relations about notable living figures, the people who contribute here and want to sustain the original principles will have two choices, to elect another board or find another project. I do not think it will come to that: I am confident that they will support the encyclopedia. They are our delegates to take formal responsibility for the project. I hope they do consider themselves morally obliged to support good faith contributors to the extent practical. That's the role of any organisation which undertakes honest publishing. It certainly is not prudent in this regard to cave in at the filing of the first lawsuit. Looking at the subject's web page, I see the headline there about this is about standing up to bullies. He's giving good legal advice. True, he thinks we're the bully, but that lack of self-perception is the reason why why people are traditionally advised not to be their own lawyers. The best way to encourage more unjustifiable lawsuits is to not defend the article DGG (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strongly agree with DGG. --Bardin (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Saddam Hussein's lawyer? Seriously? There are enough citations in the lead alone to justify an article.
  • Strongest possible keep. The article is well-referenced, NPOV, and unarguably notable. To delete it would be a greater show of bias than keeping it ever could. Let's not bend to hollow threats. Enoktalk 21:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with total respect for the deleters' arguments. Per JzG, on this occasion deletion is not the answer to BLP concerns. --John (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can certainly understand how unsourced statements about a living person could be and are damaging to them and their reputation. Obviously, I would much prefer that no such statements be made about Mr. di Stefano. It's very unfortunate that situations like this have arisen, but I think that in the case of an obviously notable person, it's worrisome at best to allow this sort of pressure. Hypothetically, what if Bill Clinton requested his page be removed because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal? What would we do in that situation? Obviously it's hypothetical, but it's just something to think about. When someone clearly meets notability, it's our responsibility to have an article. It's also our responsibility to protect that person's reputation, so I'm in favor of some level of permanent protection on the page to avoid any such attacks in the future. Additional comment: I do hope that some compromise can be worked out with Mr. di Stefano as well, so that this does not evolve into a still further contentious issue. Of course, it is already. But the best possible situation is one that pleases both the Wikipedia community and Mr. di Stefano. Such abilities are beyond me though, but I sincerely hope that a good solution can be found. matt91486 (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I certainly understand where Lawrence and those arguing for deletion are coming from, and like John I respect their arguments. However the subject of this article is extremely notable and - as some folks have mentioned above and as I have argued previously with respect to the Don Murphy article - there really are some pretty serious precedent problems if we delete an article under these circumstances. Mike Godwin has apparently been apprised of the situation and if there are legal concerns that's what WP:OFFICE is for (according to Jimbo it's not even clear that a lawsuit has been filed). These particular kind of BLP issues keep coming up (i.e. situations where a somewhat, or very, notable subject wants an article deleted), and though they appear to be in the minority, editors arguing for a more expanded policy with respect to courtesy deletions of BLP's make important points which we need to consider. Instead of having the same arguments in these kind of AfD's, we really ought to have a wider discussion about our BLP policy and craft a more straightforward policy for dealing with these sort of issues.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly and unambiguously notable, and deleting it would violate WP:NPOV. Policing it to avoid unsourced defamatory statements is, yes, a hard job, but to give up on those grounds is to essentially decide that the project is impossible, and I prefer to be an optimist here. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is clearly a prominent person and there's clearly lots of reference material available about him; he warrants an article. If there are problems with the current contents not adhering to content policies those issues should be worked out through normal editing. Bryan Derksen (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He has acted in some high profile trials. If there are incorrect statements in the article, I have no doubt that they can easily be corrected. I have no doubt that arrangements can be made for the subject to request amendments for anything that he considers incorrect. However, his opinion of himself is a POV. If what is said is true, WP Foundation has a complete defence to a libel claim, and I suspect that the subject has better things to spend his money on. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Is completely notable and sourced. If problems regarding BLP can be easily corrected. Grsz11 03:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. When I saw this last night I had hoped consensus had emerged and some action might be taken but it appears we will let this run the whole time. So I will be clear: Deleting this article would go against the entire ideal of the project we are attempting to create. We are here to make a neutral, referenced, and informative encyclopedia where information on all notable subjects can be found. We have no "moral imperative," we need only keep that one goal in mine. SorryGuy  Talk  17:48, 21 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]
  • Keep Notable with RS's. Subject wanting it gone is not a valid reason. He is a public figure and is notable. His information is in the public domain. WP reports on notable people with special concern per BLP.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable and has reliable sources. People don't get to choose whether they're included or not. Certainly we should aggressively remove unsourced negative information, but equally the article should remain and the block for legal threats should absolutely be maintained. Stifle (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The only viable delete option seems (to me) to be delete and salt. As far as I can see, the article is currently very well sourced although I sense some problems with tone and orientation. If something in the public record is distressing to him, this is not Wikipedia's problem. Taking steps to reasonably insure the exclusion of incorrect information seems appropriate, even to the level of full protection if necessary. If this requires more attention and work than is usual for an article, that will have to happen in one way or another. Unless there is a valid WMF legal concern, I just don't see the reason to comply with his demands. If there is a valid WMF legal concern, of course all bets are off and I fully support whatever action is necessary. Mr di Stefano apparently doesn't like bullies; neither do I. Pigman☿ 20:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment yes but who is bullying you, Pigman. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, since he apparently also threatened legal action towards anyone who has edited the article on him, I'd be happy to make an edit to it, putting myself on the line for my opinion here. Unlike some editors, I am not entirely anonymous on Wikipedia. I can actually be tracked down and served a legal process or suit. Is that a suitable proof that I do believe he is bullying me when he threatens Wikipedia? Cheers, Pigman☿ 20:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well good luck to you, if you have something to lose perhaps I woudl take you more sympathetically. As a long term editor on the article with meatspace resources I have perhaps taken this a b it more seriously. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The schoolyard solution, of course, would be to give the bully what he wants. Hey, it worked for Neville Chamberlain.--WaltCip (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes but in that case it was Hitler doing the provoking. GDS says wikiepdia is doing the bullying here and I think while it is not true of wikipedia there are edito5rs here who have acted in a bullying fashion towards him. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • How appropriate to invoke our attorney :) AecisBrievenbus 21:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Squeakbox, I'm a little unclear what you mean by "...if you have something to lose". Are you saying I'm either not serious about adding my name to the article or that I have nothing of real value to lose? I'm not a minor below the age of consent. Far from it. I have meatspace property. I suspect, given Mr di Stefano public attitude about this matter, whether I have heavily edited or only have a couple of edits to the article, I would probably be subject to the same penalties as you. Just my opinion. Pigman☿ 22:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As noted above, the article is very well referenced, and all the information about di Stefano is available on other public websites such as the BBC, the Sun, The Guardian etc. If the article is deleted because he isn't happy with the information we have from reliable sources, then it opens the doorway to have any public figure who has done something controversial to demand their bio is removed from the 'pedia because they don't like that stuff being repeated. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. I really never liked the idea of WP becoming the Big brother of the net looking to include negative minutae of everybodies lives. --DHeyward (talk) 22:14, 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]
  • Keep. Sourced articles on notable people that adhere to WP:BLP should not be removed simply because the subject is uncomfortable with media coverage. If there's an issue with vandalism or recurrent additions of BLP-violating material, WP has mechanisms in place up to and including Arbcom that can be called into action. To delete an article on request of this nature would set a dangerous precedent. Police it, make sure it's accurate, lock-out vandals if you have to, but if we delete this one we might as well start deleting all biographical articles of living people. I am honestly curious if the individual has served legal papers against any of the sources listed, and what their reaction has been. 23skidoo (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am listed and have as of yet not recieved any papers. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nor have I. Avruch T 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is not that difficult to make an article neutral if it is kept brief. I see no reason that a shortened version of the article couldn't be kept, with any contentious material removed. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable, and under BLPwatch. We are here to document the truth, whether people like it or not (within WP:NPOV naturally), so if this man is unhappy about the way he lives his life it is not a matter for AfD. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable, sourced, and generally a good article. Also per VanTucky. Enigma message Review 04:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to general principle that the community should not decide legal matters for the Foundation. If Jimbo, Mike, or someone else associated with the Foundation wishes to delete the article, no debate is necessary. Otherwise, we should not do so on their behalf and in their name. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is ludicrous. He is clearly notable and has received massive press coverage - not just for one event, but for his lifetime of involvement with controversial cases. There is plenty of sourced material. And due to all this attention, the article is actually being rather well-maintained, as far as I can tell. As an encyclopedia, we should not be making editorial decisions based on legal threats. Let him sue if he wants to; nothing in the article is defamatory (as he should know, being a lawyer). Yes, we should be careful with BLPs, particularly marginal and poorly-maintained ones; but this one is neither marginal or poorly-maintained. WaltonOne 14:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with most of the keep comments made so far, so I won't repeat them. My biggest concern is the precedent of deleting an article based solely on legal threats, especially since the article is not in violation of any of our core policies for BLP. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I agree with much of the above. I would add that I feel that we have a moral responsibility to include notable subjects in an encyclopedia. Further, I fear the dangerous precedent we would be setting in place for the future (the deletion of articles per the threat of legal action??) Lazulilasher (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid we really have to keep the article and write it as best we can. Di Stefano is an obviously notable figure, so much so that it would appear very strange if we did not have an article on him. I'm afraid Di Stefano's bullying doesn't really impress me either. 20:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep If this must be deleted for legal reasons, WP:OFFICE will take care of it, whatever we decide here. Barring that eventuality: This is a notable subject, and there are no problems with WP:V. Per BLP concerns, watch and protect as necessary, up to and including indefinite protection of article and Talk pages (want a change? email an admin). SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That sounds like a terrible idea, ie giving editing power exclusively to any admin. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:16, 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]
  • Keep I'm in favour of greater care with BLPs. I like the BLP-lock idea (though I seem to be in the minority...), I find some merit to WP:OPTOUT, I think Docglasgow's piece on BLPs should be mandatory reading for people who insist on keeping articles for anyone who has ever been mentioned in the NYTimes. But Giovanni di Stefano? Come on now... The man has been involved in very high-profile cases, and in particular as the defense attorney in cases nobody else would touch. He's not Jacques Vergès but he has chosen to be in the public spotlight. He created a political party (another one is on the way). He bought and tried to buy football teams playing in top leagues. He produced a record with a hit single. He's, for better or worse, a media personality, a part of the legal landscape. This is not one of the "barely notable" cases, whatever that means. No, it's not an article that we'd miss as much as Barack Obama but, I'd like to suggest that we'd miss it as much as, say Ryan Leaf (who'd probably be none too pleased to read that he's "generally considered to be one of the biggest flops in NFL and professional sports history"). We need to respect di Stefano's reputation, privacy even feelings? Sure. We need to flesh out irrelevant or unnecessarily negative content from the article? Ok. We need to protect the article permanently because we can't maintain it otherwise? Ok. Many here are open to discussing these options. Deletion? This is such an overkill. And I'd like to note that OPTOUT activists are doing themselves a big disservice by using this article as their landmark case. In his nomination, Lawrence says "Before anyone says "Notability", there are more important things in life than our silly Wikipedia games." I find that rather insulting. Silly Wikipedia games are debates on GNAA, on Daniel Brandt, on BJAODN. Silly Wikipedia games are he said she said ANI threads. Silly Wikipedia games is needing an arbitration case to figure out a way out to organize television episodes. But deciding whether or not we should strip Wikipedia of valuable content because of the potential harm for living people, well that's a rather deep issue and condescending to editors who feel that di Stefano is not in the grey area is unlikely to gather much sympathy. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep We can actually be damaging if we don't include this. Editorofthewiki 00:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep No valid reason is offered for deletion and the article is well sourced. Giving in to Mr. Stefano would have a chilling effect on the project as a whole, if it's done the whole project might as well be scrapped. I do find it ironic that Mr. Stefano accuses Wikpedia of bullying, yet is threatening a huge lawsuit in order to get his way. Edward321 (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This person clears the bar for notability, and it is possible to write a neutral and verifiable article. It is not the rôle of AfD to second-guess legal issues. If the Foundation is untenably exposed, it will take office action. If the subject knows of specific errors, he has many channels available for getting them corrected. I would encourage administrators to be liberal in granting protection for articles like this. Bovlb (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NO consessions. Migdejong (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:COI. User:Krator (t c) 13:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep. cf. Wikipedia:No legal threats. The article has irrefutable notability; of course it should follow WP:NPOV and not include defamatory material. victor falk 15:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the subject is notable beyond the extent to which I would consider a courtesy deletion appropriate. If the page needs to be deleted for legal reasons it should be done by the Wikimedia Foundation on the advice of their lawyer. Hut 8.5 18:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's not our fault if someone is notable against his wishes. Threatening with legal procedures should never be a reason for deletion, just a reason to check the facts with the references - GijsvdL (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't know if this person was notable before, but because of the fact it wants 50 million of Wikipedia (and is in the newspapers all over the world) he became 100% notable. Jeroenvrp (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a clear cut case of keep...why in the world is this still going on? Rgoodermote  00:39, 24 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]
  • Strong and obvious keep He's very famous. I have no particular interest in his fields of endeavour, but I have heard mention of him a number of times in the most prominent media sources. The idea that Wikipedia should surrender to the writ-happy is absolutely appalling. If we adopt that approach our ability to produce a neutral encyclopedia will be dead and gone. It's not just the integrity of biographical articles that is at stake, but that of every article that touches on the life of any living person. Luwilt (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is clear. We can't let the Wikipedia community and its editors be pushed around like this. It would be an extremely bad precedent. --- RockMFR 17:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and after reading Pascal.Tesson's comment above, I'm leaning towards strong keep. With all the respect I hold for those suggesting deletion, I believe this article is still a keep. It meets our standards for inclusion, even with the drama behind it all. We can do better than just invoke WP:IAR and forget about the article. We may find ourselves with many more similar requests using this article and deletion discussion as precedent. I sincerely trust the Foundation to delete the article or stubify it if the legal threat is deemed so serious. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 18:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When the precedent is set that anything "controversial" (a very flexible word that can be used to define almost any position) is removed then this place falls to bits. This is wikipedia, the supposed home of free knowledge - not wikipedia, the home of free knowledge (unless someone takes exception to something, in which case it is deleted). BLP has nothing to do with this - the article is well referenced - it seems absolutely bizarre that this AfD is even in existence. The AfD process is being misused. SFC9394 (talk) 18:47, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Giovanni_di_Stefano&oldid=1171509827"