Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Biscardi
per meeting . Last I knew, something "being a 'potetial' BLP minefield" or "feeling uncomfortable having it around" were not valid deletion arguments.  The subject is covered in multiple reliable sources https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Tom+Biscardi%22&tbm=nws&tbs=ar:1#q=%22Tom+Biscardi%22+-Wikipedia&hl=en&tbs=ar:1,sbd:1&tbm=nws&source=lnt&sa=X&psj=1&ei=XR3PT-bwKYKb2QWu_4XUDA&ved=0CDYQpwUoAQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=119d693c4ec9a097&biw=855&bih=495 over a many-years period and is discussed https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Tom+Biscardi%22 in multiple books. '''THE''' definition of what constitutes notability.  We have more suitable ways to deal with "problem" articles than outright deletion because of "potential" problems or "feelings" of unease. We do not care about the truth or not of his message or his field of study... only that he IS covered. And quite importantly, this should be returned to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_Biscardi&diff=465698564&oldid=465698326 the sourced version which existed before the massive gutting a gutting which resulted in a poor verison of the original being brought to AFD for review. I would suggest this article THEN be semi-protected to prevent improper edits by anon IPs
— User:MichaelQSchmidt, 09:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)