, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't disagree in principle with anything you've written above. I would have no problem with a much stricter notability policy that favored importance over other concerns. However, what you or I might prefer takes  or should take  a back seat to what is. And what is does not require so stringent a standard, at least the way I read the current notability standards. In my view, David Boothroyd met these standards  though barely so  even before the minor scandal. After it, I think there's no question he does. While I share your concerns regarding the future of such articles, the article as it currently stands in userspace presents no viable BLP concerns as far as I can tell.
On a tangent, I am actually considering reworking the notability standards in a way that addresses your concerns above as my first Wikipedia-space project. There are so many "nobodies" that have articles currently that I think this is a rather necessary change. As this would be a major shift, I don't plan on working on it on the actual page, but using a sandbox of some sort. Could you advise me as to both the feasibility of taking on such a project, as well as how to creat a draft like CoM's current Boothroyd article? Thanks, Unitanode 16:05