Deletion of Giovanni di Stefano

Comment: 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  articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: It follows |notability guidelines
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: 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,  is irreparably damaged. Deletions of this sort are attacks on the very nature of Wikipedia itself and must never be allowed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: 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 . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: cf. '''Wikipedia:No legal threats'''. The article has irrefutable notability; of course it should follow  and not include defamatory material
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: Sourced articles on notable people that adhere to  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: Notable, and under BLPwatch. We are here to document the truth, whether people like it or not (within  naturally), so if this man is unhappy about the way he lives his life it is not a matter for AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: The subject has enough reliable sources with substantial coverage of his career to satisfy  and specifically . 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  violations
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BIO||WP:BLP)