: Please do not. Carlo's argument have a number of weaknesses, to the point that they prove none of their claims. WP:NPOV requires significant views published by reputable sources to be represented. Carlo argues, in short, that Berlusconi can't be a mafioso because he fought mafia. That's just Carlo's argument here (Original Research), and it can be refuted. It could be sourced by sources near to Berlusconi's party. But even the article Carlo quotes from the Libero newspaper, about the "success" of Berlusconi against mafia, talks about the contradicting actions of the government. Libero is well-known as a right-wing newspaper. Reputable sources claim that other of his laws, in more occasions, helped mafia. So there is no consensus that the mafia allegations are "disproved". More specifically, the police has had great success against the mafia even though it has not received enough funding, recent laws (e.g. against wiretapping) made investigations more difficult, and Berlusconi claiming that Vittorio Mangano, proved to be a mafioso, is a hero. 
 : Obama's tan was a diplomatic problem widely discussed by political news - not by tabloids. Same for the Noemi and D'Addario scandals, they have not been discussed exclusively by tabloids; it is again Berlusconi's party to claim that these scandals have no political implications. In general, Carlo exposes the arguments of one side of the debate. Some of the facts mentioned might deserve being added to the article. I find no violation of WP:NPOV or WP:BLP in the article. Quoting from WP:BLP: 
 ::If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. 
 : So please refrain from removing from the article what Carlo suggested, and do not allow unfounded arguments to convince you to make the article worse. I'm talking of the current version and of the claims by Carlo - I do not claim the article to be perfect, but Carlo's reasoning to be fatally flawed.