Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darleen Druyun
because the article's now better-sourced.  The BLP concerns remain, and I think BLP concerns trump notability arguments in this case.I wanted to comment on Rootology's statement, above ("You may wish to add sourcing then to demonstrate notability before the AFD closes, or else your keep has no standing. The burden is on those wanting to Keep.")  I wonder if Rootology's confused about the interplay of  and ? deals with content, and it places a duty on all editors to cut unsourced, negative information about living people from Wikipedia on sight.  It does not deal with subjects or topics, but the actual text of an article. deals with subjects and topics but not content.  So if something's not notable, it shouldn't have ''a separate article''.  It may merit inclusion as part of a different topic, so at least some of the actual text may be d.In questions of notability the onus is on ''everyone'' to look for sources, not on the "keep" side alone (nor on the "delete" side alone
— User:S, 00:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:BURDEN||WP:N||WP:BURDEN||WP:N||WP:PRESERVE (Wikipedia:Verifiability)