Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Shankbone
Much was made of claims that BLP wasn't taken sufficiently into consideration. Although this is, obviously, a BLP article, there are '''no''' BLP problems in the article at this time. None. Shankbone has not requested deletion, there is no damaging material in the article. None. And arguing that it's a BLP magnet is  and using that as a deletion rationale has absolutely no basis in policy or guidelines. And that argument also applies to many, many other BLP related articles. Should Sara Palin be deleted because of BLP issues? How about Joe the plumber.  That was a BLP mess around the 2008 election. But it got fixed.  How about E.O. Green School shooting. That has been a BLP magnet in the past and the same arguments were attempted. But it also got fixed. If we give in to deliberate BLP violators, then we have facilitated and encouraged them to control what articles stay or go. Just waltz over to Wikipedia, BLP violate an article enough,  the system, and get what you want. Just like paying ransom facilitates and encourages kidnapping. Yes, protecting BLP articles is a pain, sometimes a really big pain, but that is the price we pay for having articles on notable people, especially controversial notable people, and in having open editing. |Flagged protection and patrolled revisions will help in protecting BLP articles from attack and a trial of that is supposed to happen soon now.  Hopefully.  Until then, we use Huggle, Twinkle, and old fashioned Mark IV eyeballs and manual editing to keep BLP violations at bay. And the other tools available.  I have become a very big proponent of removing BLP content based on knowledge of the kind of pain BLP content can cause,  and have got into passionate discussions over it. But since Shankbone is not requesting deletion, why are some of us
— User:Becksguy, 19:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:CRYSTAL||WP:GAME||WP:FPPR (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)