User:Kotniski/blp
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a proposed revised version of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy page. (Still under construction.) Please discuss at the talk page or make edits to this page yourself.
 |
This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious. |
- If you are a user who is concerned about the accuracy or appropriateness of biographical material in a Wikipedia article about yourself, please see Dealing with articles about yourself, below.
Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to applicable laws in the United States and to our content policies:
| Wikipedia policy |
|---|
| Article standards |
| Neutral point of view Verifiability No original research Biographies of living persons |
| Working with others |
| Civility Consensus No personal attacks Dispute resolution No legal threats |
| Global principles |
| What Wikipedia is not Ignore all rules |
We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.[2]
Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".
This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.
Contents |
[edit] Rationale
Wikipedia is an international, top-ten website, which means that material we publish about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends. Biographical material must therefore be written with strict adherence to our content policies.
I just wanted to thank you for your help and patience in resolving our dispute. I want to commend you and Wikipedia for the fair way you handled it. I'm sure you have disputes like this all the time, but for me it was a matter of personal integrity and reputation, so I may have sounded angry or aggressive. So I want to add that I continue to use Wikipedia and defend it in principle for its democratic approach to creating knowledge. Thanks again for your help.
– Article subject, responding to OTRS after a problem biography was fixed - OTRS ticket#2008040310021682.
[edit] Writing and editing
[edit] Writing style
Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted (see #Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material).
The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections. Instead, relevant sourced claims should be woven into the article.
Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.
–Jimmy Wales [3]
[edit] External links
External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality, and in full compliance with this and other policies and with the external links guideline.[4]
[edit] Criticism and praise
- Further information: Wikipedia:Coatrack
Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.
Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
[edit] Categories
Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear by the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced.
Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a poor reputation (see Invasion of privacy#False light).
Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met:
- The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
- The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.
[edit] Sources
[edit] Reliable sources
Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.
Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link (see above).
Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs[5] should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).
Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?
Editors should also be careful of a feedback loop in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention.
[edit] Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material
Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, though editors are advised to seek help from an administrator or at the BLP noticeboard if they find themselves violating 3RR, rather than dealing with the situation alone. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy.
These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.
Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details).
I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.[2]
–Jimmy Wales
[edit] Using the subject as a self-published source
Self-published material may be used in BLPs only if written by the subject himself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:
- it is not contentious;
- it is not unduly self-serving;
- it does not involve claims about third parties;
- it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
- there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
- the article is not based primarily on such sources.
These provisions do not apply to subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published.
[edit] Dealing with edits by the subject of the article
In some cases the subject may become involved in editing the article, either directly or through a representative. Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, a tolerant attitude should be taken in cases where subjects of articles remove unsourced or poorly sourced material.
Jimmy Wales has warned editors to think twice when encountering such attempts:
"... reverting someone who is trying to remove libel about themselves is a horribly stupid thing to do."
–Jimmy Wales [6]
Anonymous edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person should be evaluated carefully. When the subject is of ambiguous notability, such edits should not be regarded as vandalism in the first instance, and recent changes patrollers should bear in mind that they may be dealing with the subject. The use of inflammatory edit summaries or vandalism-related talk-page templates should be avoided.
The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to the subjects of biographies who try to remove what they see as errors or unfair material:
For those who either have or might have an article about themselves it is a temptation, especially if plainly wrong, or strongly negative information is included, to become involved in questions regarding their own article. This can open the door to rather immature behavior and loss of dignity. It is a violation of don't bite the newbies to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap rather than seeing this phenomenon as a newbie mistake.
– Arbitration Committee decision (December 18, 2005)[7]
[edit] Presumption in favor of privacy
Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and as such it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. BLPs must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.
When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.
[edit] Basic human dignity
Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.
[edit] Well-known public figures
In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.
- Example
- "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is it important to the article, and has it been published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out.
- Example
- A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source.
Exert great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses — or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them. Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability.
[edit] People who are relatively unknown
Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution. (See Using the subject as a source.)
Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their truth.
[edit] Articles about people notable only for one event
- Further information: WP:NOT#NEWS, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and Wikipedia:Notability (people)
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them.
If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person.
[edit] Privacy of personal information
Wikipedia includes dates of birth for some well-known living persons where the dates have been widely published, but editors should exercise caution with less notable people. With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private. When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth.
In a similar vein, Wikipedia articles should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted.
[edit] Privacy of names
Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.
Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger. In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, editors should be willing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page.
[edit] Preventing BLP violations
As a continuously updated encyclopedia, Wikipedia naturally contains many thousands of articles about living persons, both widely and less widely known. From both a legal and and ethical standpoint it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other undesirable information from these articles as far as possible. On the other hand Wikipedia's standing and neutrality must not be compromised by allowing the inclusion of articles about non-notable publicity-seekers, the editing of articles to show an excessive bias in their subject's favor, or the removal of appropriate and well-sourced information simply because the subject objects to it.
Article improvement to a neutral high quality standard is preferred if possible, with dubious material removed if necessary until issues related to quality of sources, neutrality of presentation, and general appropriateness in the article have been discussed and resolved. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is sourced to good quality sources, neutral, and on-topic. However in many cases the appropriate use of administrative tools such as page protection and deletion is necessary for the enforcement of BLP policy.
[edit] Routine semi-protection
To reduce the potential for inappropriate editing of BLP articles, an administrator may semi-protect any article about a living person who, while notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia, is not sufficiently widely known to ensure that the article will necessarily be watched by significant numbers of editors. In particular, this is likely to apply when an article has survived a proposal for deletion on grounds of non-notability. The administrator should place an appropriate template on the page advising users (and in particular the article subject) how to request a change to the article if they are unable to edit it.
[edit] Semi-protection and protection
Administrators who suspect malicious or biased editing, or who have reason to believe that violating material may be re-added, may protect or semi-protect the page after removing the disputed material. It is generally more desirable in the medium and long term to obtain compliance with this policy by editors, in order that the article may be kept open for editing wherever possible.
[edit] Deletion
Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, containing primarily unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion.
Page deletion should be treated as a last resort, with the page being improved and remedied where possible and disputed areas discussed. If the dispute centers around suitability of the page for inclusion – for example, if there are doubts as to notability or the subject has requested deletion – then this should be addressed at xFD rather than by BLP summary deletion. Summary deletion in part or whole is relevant when the page contains unsourced negative material or is disparaging and written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be repaired or replaced to an acceptable standard. (Replacement might include a high quality older revision or high quality rewrite.)
The deleting administrator should be willing to explain the deletion to other administrators, by e-mail if the material is sensitive; administrators and other editors who object to the deletion should bear in mind that the deleting admin may be aware of issues that others are not. Disputes may be taken to deletion review, but any protracted public discussion should be avoided for deletions involving sensitive personal material about living persons, particularly if it is negative. Such debates may be courtesy blanked upon conclusion.
- Further information: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary deletion of BLPs
AfD discussions about BLP articles are subject to the same rules as other articles; where there is no clear consensus to delete, the article must be kept. The views of the article subject may be relevant inasmuch as they relate to breaches of the policy described above; a simple wish to be or not to be included in the encyclopedia is unlikely to carry much weight. However if an article clearly contains defamatory or similarly inappropriate information, then improvement or summary deletion should be used as described above, without waiting for the outcome of the deletion discussion.
[edit] Deletion of comments about other editors
Pages used for legitimate Wikipedia administrative purposes and discussions, such as users' own user pages, dispute resolution pages, project and community pages, and comments between users, often contain opinions and observations by editors that may relate to other editors. Although applicable to these, BLP deletion is not the usual means of addressing users issues on these pages, and leeway to allow the handling of editorial issues by the community should be allowed. For personal attacks and negative or disparaging comments against editors, see the policy no personal attacks which contains its own deletion discussion.
[edit] After deletion
After the deletion of a biography of a living person, editors should consider moving data to another article, but they must bear in mind that this policy applies to all pages of Wikipedia; editors should never move material from a deleted biography of a living person as a way of thwarting the point of the page deletion. Also, when merging content from a biography of a living person, editors must preserve the edit history due to the GFDL.
[edit] Restoring deleted content
In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material.
If the material is to be restored without significant change, then consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible, disputed deletions should be discussed with the administrator who deleted the article. If the material is proposed to be significantly repaired or rewritten to address the concerns, then it may need discussion or may be added to the article; this should be considered case-by-case. In some cases users may wish to consider drafting a proposed article in their user space and seek discussion at WP:DRV. In any event if the matter becomes disputed it should not be added back without discussion and consensus-seeking.
[edit] Courtesy blanking of deletion discussions
If a biography of a living person is deleted through an Articles for deletion (AfD) debate, the AfD page and any subsequent deletion review that fails may be courtesy-blanked or deleted if there was inappropriate commentary.[8] After the deletion of a biography of a living person, any admin may choose to protect the page against recreation.
[edit] Blocking
Editors who repeatedly add or restore unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy.
[edit] Templates
This policy applies to all living persons in an entry, not merely the subject of the entry.[9] {{Blp}} may be added to the talk pages of biographies of living persons so that editors and readers, including subjects, are alerted to this policy. It also may be added to the talk pages of articles which mention living persons. Alternatively, if a {{WPBiography}} template is present, you can add living=yes to the template parameters.
For problems with people violating BLP, you can use these templates:
- {{uw-biog1}}
- {{uw-biog2}} or {{blp0}}
- {{uw-biog3}} or {{blp1}}
- {{uw-biog4}} or {{blp2}}
- {{blp3}} for when a block is issued
{{Blpdispute}} may be used on pages needing attention. {{BLPsources}} may be used on BLP pages needing better sourcing.
[edit] Non-article space
As the introduction says:
- Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.
- Talk pages
Talk pages are used to make decisions about article contents. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted, and even oversighted if especially problematic (telephone number, libel, etc). New material should generally be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus concerning relevance, availability of sources, and reliability of sources. Repeated questionable claims with BLP issues not based on new evidence can generally be immediately deleted with a reference to where in the archive the prior consensus was reached.
- User pages
The rules for talk pages also apply for user pages with the single exception that it is customary to allow the user to make any claim they wish about themselves without sources in their user space.[10] All user pages, must nonetheless, conform to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, ruling out their use as advertisements, for example. Editors are prohibited from impersonating another individual.
- Project space
In project space, we maintain information about users that we need to make administrative choices. These pages are visible to everyone for the sake of openness and transparency, which is essential to the success and health of the WikiMedia mission. Usernames at Wikipedia are often associated with off-Wikipedia identities, and negative comments can be the source of difficulties, including legal problems. It helps both the people behind these identities and Wikipedia itself if this information is dealt with thoughtfully, carefully, caringly, and even creatively in edge cases. If in doubt about the appropriateness of publishing certain claims about living persons in project space, unbiased consultation is still important, but one should take care not to publish effectively the same information in seeking advice. Consider using alternative means other than on-wiki posting if necessary, such as e-mail, to discuss the issue with other editors, administrators, or the Arbitration Committee.
[edit] Dealing with articles about yourself
If you have a query regarding an article about yourself, please see the biographical articles help page which covers how such matters are most effectively addressed, provides contact points, and advises on relevant important information. The most important points are these:
- Wikipedia has editorial standards and policies which will often help to immediately resolve your concern, many users willing to help if you are unfamiliar with these, and a wide range of escalation processes and means of support. But you need to know they exist and what they say (or where to find them).
- Wikipedia also has very strict rules on conduct (including politeness) and is almost entirely operated by volunteer editors who aim to help; impolite behavior even if reasonable will often be far less effective and may even lead to a 'block'. Please try hard to avoid heading in this direction! It is ineffective compared to seeking help!
- Very obvious errors can be fixed quickly, including by yourself. But beyond that, or if disputed, there are "basics" that you will need to know if you wish to do much more, or make it easier.
- There are certain things you have a complete right to expect, and also things you cannot expect. It is important to understand these.
[edit] Designated agent
The designated agent for Wikipedia is:
Jimmy Wales, designated agent
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
146 2nd St N, # 310
St. Petersburg FL 33701
United States
Fax: +1-727-258-0207
E-mail: Board@wikimedia.org
Postal address:
Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
P.O. Box 78350
San Francisco
California 94107-8350
United States
Telephone: +1-415-839-6885
Fax: +1-415-882-0495
E-mail: 
[edit] See also
- Relevant policies
- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
- Wikipedia:No original research
- Wikipedia:Verifiability
- Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
- Wikipedia:No personal attacks
- Wikipedia:Resolving disputes
- Wikipedia:Libel
- Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy (this includes Wikipedia)
- Wikipedia:Blocking policy
- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
- Relevant guidelines
- Wikipedia:Reliable sources
- Wikipedia:Notability (people)
- Wikipedia:Autobiography
- Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
- Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies
- Relevant essays
- Wikipedia:Avoiding harm, an essay about this topic
- Wikipedia:Coatrack
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[edit] Notes
- ^ Jimmy Wales. Keynote speech, Wikimania, August 2006.
- ^ a b Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 16, 2006 and May 19, 2006
- ^ . "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 19, 2006
- ^ Note that where the external links guideline is inconsistent with this or other policies, the policies prevail.
- ^ "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources. From Wikipedia:Verifiability#cite_note-4.
- ^ Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 19, 2006
- ^ Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude#Mercy: "3) Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, a guideline, admonishes Wikipedia users to consider the obvious fact that new users of Wikipedia will do things wrong from time to time. For those who either have or might have an article about themselves it is a temptation, especially if plainly wrong, or strongly negative information is included, to become involved in questions regarding their own article. This can open the door to rather immature behavior and loss of dignity. It is a violation of don't bite the newbies to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap rather than seeing this phenomenon as a newbie mistake. Passed 6-0-1"
- ^ "...In the meantime, it is my position that MOST AfD pages for living persons or active companies should be courtesy blanked (at a minimum) as a standard process, and deleted in all cases where there was inappropriate commentary. This is not the current policy, but currenty policy does allow for deletions of material which is potentially hurtful to people." --Jimbo Wales 01:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- ^ Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden: "WP:BLP applies to all living persons mentioned in an article"
- ^ see Wikipedia:Credentials and its talk page
[edit] Further reading
