Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Edwards paternity allegations
This may look like beating a dead horse, but since  issues are important here, and because I think it's possible that a closing admin or DRV might ignore this consensus, I want to answer some possible objections. I haven't seen most of these explicitly stated, but I think it's implicit in some comments:  insists on good sourcing, particularly for extraordinary claims (which applies to this situation), so it might be objected that ''The National Enquirer'' (NE) is just not a reliable source, and therefore the article violates , and that this concern outweighs the benefits of having an article that discusses media coverage and even the historical significance of how this impinges on John Edwards' political influence and career (obviously an important subject). As  states, application of any policy, including  and , needs to be treated with common sense. Only a consensus that violates core policies can be overturned by a closing admin or by deletion review, and it would be improper to overturn a consensus that reasonably treats and applies those policies in a commonsense way (whether or not the closing admin or DRV ultimately agree with the consensus, they only have to recognize it as reasonable). Reasons why  and  (and ) are not violated, and instead are treated with common-sense in this case
— NONE, NONE
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:BLP||WP:POL||WP:RS||WP:V (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons)