QUOTE(Infomercial @ Sun 26th December 2010, 11:22pm)
I might have to do a bit more research, but improving these articles might actually be better in the long run than simply deleting them, whether there's opposition or not.
Articles can be un-deleted at will. Any BLP that fails the dead-tree biography test, regardless of the in-article sourcing, should be deleted right now. Literally, now. People who complain about this can be called "volunteers": the article(s) can be undeleted in their user-space, and once it meets their standards, they sign-off on it with the WMF in some way it can be traced back them, should some legal matter arise. Subsequent editors of the article should also be identified to the WMF, for similar accountability purposes. Further structure re: quality assurance is a good idea as well.
Though this is sensible, and easily done, it is clear this won't happen, as very few people really want to improve these articles. We need only look at the experience of Scott Macdonald, Lar and others are having.