370:. There is a presumption in favour of privacy, and as such, in most cases, the names should not be restored unless there is a definite consensus to do so. In some such cases, editors should avoid quoting the names themselves (or other contested biographical information) on talk pages during the discussion; it should be remembered that talk pages are public space, and that information discussed there is available to readers.
50:
110:
423:
biography of that person's public life. If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect
373:
In exceptional cases, when names or sensitive information have been redacted, it may be necessary to discuss the removal by e-mail or other off-wiki methods, rather than on the talk page. This should, however, be avoided where possible, as it reduces transparency. Editors should exercise sensitivity
362:
In contrast, there are cases where it is unnecessary to include a full biography of a person, or even their name. For instance, a child born with an unusual medical condition, who has received some coverage in the news media, may be mentioned in the article on their medical condition; in such cases,
342:
It is not possible to develop a definite rule for such cases. In general, if such an individual – the victim of a crime, for instance – has received substantial independent coverage in the media, and their name is well-known, then it is appropriate to include an article on them. Examples of this are
309:
Biographies should not be dominated by a single event in the subject's life. In Ms. Bush's case, she is notable as the daughter of a serving head of state, and has received extensive media coverage not related to the underage drinking incident; as such, this incident should not dominate the article,
279:
over an extended period of time, then it is probably suitable to be included in the article. If the information has only appeared in a few tabloid sources, local newspapers, or websites of dubious quality, or has only been the subject of fleeting and temporary coverage, then it is not appropriate to
263:
primarily because of her relationship to a head of state, it would normally be inappropriate to include information of this nature about her (whereas it would be entirely appropriate, for instance, if the information concerned a sitting politician). However, the Jenna Bush article is an example of a
698:
The method of discussion used should depend on the sensitivity of the material involved. In extreme cases, where you believe that there has been a gross violation of the subject's privacy, discuss the issue privately by e-mail with other administrators. If the issue is less sensitive, discuss it at
338:
or unusual medical conditions, the children of notable individuals, or the victims of notable crimes. In many of these cases, the person in question is a child, or was a child at the time of the notable event. In such cases, some sensitivity needs to be shown in deciding whether or not to include
427:
In general, creating a pseudo-biography (on an individual who is only notable because of their participation in a single event) will mean that an editor creating the article will try to "pad out" the piece by including extraneous biographical material, e.g. their date and place of birth, family
716:
repeating material from the deleted article in the discussion. Bear in mind that discussion pages are publicly available to readers. In some cases, such discussions may be courtesy-blanked after the discussion is concluded, or names may be redacted. If deletions of this type are taken to
213:
or not. As
Knowledge (XXG) has a wider international readership than most individual newspapers, and since Knowledge (XXG) articles tend to be permanent, it is important to use sensitivity and good judgment in determining whether a piece of information should be recorded for posterity.
721:, they should not be undone while the discussion is taking place, and participants in the discussion should avoid repeating extensive material from the article. Again, if the deletion is endorsed, the discussion may subsequently be courtesy-blanked to protect the subject's privacy.
286:
Knowledge (XXG) is not in the business of speculation, or publishing dubious allegations, unless such allegations are notable in themselves. In particular, possibly false allegations that would significantly harm an individual's life should be avoided. Unconfirmed allegations may
637:
Unsourced, poorly sourced, or dubious content, especially if potentially libelous, should simply be removed on sight from biographies of living persons. Editors who repeatedly reinsert unsourced or poorly sourced material about a living person are subject to a
533:
For instance, in a case such as the redaction of names from an article, the first step may be to remove the names from an article. However, this should then be discussed on the talk page. During the discussion, the names should be left out; revert-warring is
424:
to the event article placing the information in context. If the event itself is not notable enough for an article, and the person was noted only in connection with it, it's very likely that there is no reason to cover that person at all.
126:). Where a person is notable only in connection with one event, they may not merit a biography at all. If another user removes or deletes such material, discuss it with them, but don't revert them until consensus has been reached.
676:
delete the entire article. If you are not sure, it is advisable to obtain a second opinion on the case before deleting, preferably from another administrator. If the article is deleted, use a non-aggressive edit summary, such as
196:
information consists of private details about an individual that have not been published in the mainstream media and are not widely known. In most cases, Knowledge (XXG) articles should not include such information;
538:
helpful in these circumstances, as the temporary absence of the names is unlikely to significantly damage
Knowledge (XXG)'s credibility. The names should be restored if there is a clear consensus to do so; a
36:
455:
is not. In this case, the person may merit a mention in articles associated with the event or organization, but should not have a standalone "biography" article; an example of this may be the
526:. In some cases, it is appropriate to take immediate action without prior discussion, such as where there is a flagrant breach of privacy. However, such actions should be discussed
626:
295:. In circumstances where a person has been charged with a crime, it is acceptable for Knowledge (XXG) to give details of the ongoing investigation and/or trial, but speculation
351:. Likewise, if the subject of an Internet phenomenon has received detailed and significant coverage in the news media, it may be appropriate to include their name; such as
310:
and other events in her life should be appropriately covered. In cases where a person is only notable for their participation in a single event or phenomenon (such as the
206:
291:
be included in
Knowledge (XXG) where they have already been widely publicised by the mainstream news media; in these cases, the allegations should not be given
779:
575:, then you can follow these steps. This might apply to content such as the names of crime victims, for instance, or the details of those associated with an
447:
as a main or sole focus of coverage, or is the person mentioned only in connection with an event or organization? In the second case, it is likely that the
503:
735:
499:
28:
763:
217:
In some cases, there is some question as to whether a particular piece of information is public or nonpublic, e.g. where it has been published in
665:
If enough is left to sustain an article, do not delete the article, and start a discussion of the problematic content on the article's talk page.
366:
In cases where names are removed from an article to protect the privacy of a semi-notable individual, this should be discussed on the article's
789:
712:
If a deletion of this sort is being discussed at the administrators' noticeboard or on any other
Knowledge (XXG) page, participants should
268:
appropriate for inclusion; as such, this inclusion test can be applied to other parallel situations. The factors to take into account are:
69:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge (XXG) contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
625:
edit-war to restore the information. Instead, participate in the discussion on the talk page. Alternatively, you can post a notice on the
489:
in their life? In most cases, as noted above, a person who is notable only for one event does not merit a full biography under their name.
70:
507:
401:
32:
522:
In applying the principle of "do no harm", it is often tempting for an editor to take controversial actions under the principle of
326:
If all of these apply, then it is reasonable for the information to be included. If none of them apply, then it should be removed.
695:
while the discussion is taking place; administrators can access the deleted material, so it does no harm to leave it deleted.
356:
405:
511:
334:
In some cases, a person is notable primarily for a single event in their life. This may be the case with the subjects of
551:
The following are suggestions for the possible courses of action you can follow if you see a suspected violation of the
784:
757:
740:
654:
If you are an administrator, and you see an article on a living individual where most or all of the content fails the "
510:. Thus, they must represent fairly and without bias all significant views and information (that have been published by
474:
of relevant coverage? For instance, it is not necessary to include biographies on every person who was present at the
192:
living individual can be divided broadly into two categories: public and nonpublic information. Generally speaking,
363:
it may be appropriate to mention their name in the article, but it is unlikely that they merit a full biography.
413:
668:
If there would not be enough to sustain the article, that is, the remaining content contains no evidence of
409:
62:
475:
459:. On the other hand, if the person themselves received substantial coverage under their own name, such as
158:
The essay that follows contains a number of other ideas that were considered during the formation of the
74:
752:
383:
319:
234:
171:
84:
588:
576:
432:, as it is unlikely to have been widely publicised in the media. When in doubt, concentrate on the
335:
138:
An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm.'
708:
If there is consensus among administrators that the deletion was unjustified, restore the article.
339:
their names, and/or any other biographical details about them which are not relevant to the case.
222:
58:
639:
259:, as of c. 2008. Jenna Bush was on one occasion arrested for underage drinking. As Ms. Bush is
607:
603:
584:
540:
367:
304:
292:
152:
123:
460:
348:
718:
680:
669:
643:
594:
552:
523:
314:), it may be inappropriate to write a biography on them at all, as this may develop into a
260:
189:
133:
119:
464:
344:
700:
611:
276:
218:
428:
background, hobbies and employment, etc. Such information, in many cases, will fail the
17:
256:
210:
773:
436:, rather than invading privacy for the sake of padding out an unnecessary biography.
352:
77:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
225:
should be taken into account; an inclusion test can be applied in these instances.
27:"WP:HARM" redirects here. For a page on dealing with threats of physical harm, see
37:
Knowledge (XXG):Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § It's harmful/harmless
662:
First, try removing the offending content from the article, and see what is left.
402:
Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view § Pseudoscience and related fringe theories
617:
Only restore the content if there is a clear and unequivocal consensus to do so.
252:
482:
is notable; individual people (other than the shooter, in this case) are not.
456:
311:
162:
policy. Many of them continue to resonate strongly with our current policy.
147:
remains an important consideration within our living persons policy, doing
221:, but it is doubtful whether it belongs in an article. In such cases, the
621:
If you see a removal of such content, and you disagree with the removal,
151:
harm has been found to be incompatible with our obligation to maintain a
419:
An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a
412:. For the guideline about archived copies of articles in userspace, see
322:. Instead, such content may be merged into a main article on the event.
642:
from editing, and edits which remove such content are exempt from the
439:
The general test that should be applied in such cases is as follows:
202:
118:
When deciding whether it is appropriate to include information in a
104:
44:
498:
The "do no harm" principle does not justify the removal of
155:
when writing about all subjects, including living people.
658:" (see above), then you may want to follow these steps.
602:
Discuss it on the talk page, apply the inclusion test (
530:, and reversed if there is a clear consensus to do so.
391:
242:
179:
92:
251:An example of an inclusion test is the article on
764:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) is comprehensive
207:publishing revelations about their private lives
136:policy, one of the principles considered was, "
760:- When to avoid harm as it relates to policies
404:. For pseudo-namespace shortcut prefixes, see
143:This principle was ultimately rejected: while
736:Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living persons
587:and remove the content. Use a non-aggressive
408:. For the Manual of Style on pseudocode, see
374:and judgment in approaching such situations.
29:Knowledge (XXG):Responding to threats of harm
8:
502:negative information about a living person.
132:During the development of Knowledge (XXG)'s
31:. For a page on a controversial argument in
633:For removal of unsourced or dubious content
563:If you see material in a biography that is
330:Inclusion of names and biographical details
284:Is the information definitive and factual?
691:the deletion with other administrators.
307:in relation to the subject's notability?
273:Is the information already widely known?
71:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
780:Knowledge (XXG) essays about notability
610:may be helpful at this stage, as may a
315:
606:), and try to determine consensus. A
543:may be helpful in gauging consensus.
400:For the policy on pseudoscience, see
201:, and we are not in the business of "
7:
506:and articles must be written from a
766:(a somewhat contrary point of view)
571:, but may fail the inclusion test
504:Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia
467:, then they may merit a biography.
443:Do any reliable sources cover the
75:thoroughly vetted by the community
25:
406:Knowledge (XXG):Pseudo-namespaces
275:If it has appeared in mainstream
790:Knowledge (XXG) essays about BLP
199:Knowledge (XXG) is not a tabloid
166:Public and nonpublic information
108:
48:
42:Essay on editing Knowledge (XXG)
758:Knowledge (XXG):Wikicratic Oath
741:Knowledge (XXG):Blocking policy
559:For removal of sourced content
209:, whether such information is
122:, apply the "inclusion test" (
1:
553:biographies of living persons
223:potential harm to the subject
160:biographies of living persons
134:biographies of living persons
597:, will discuss on talk page)
264:case where such information
120:biography of a living person
701:administrators' noticeboard
414:Knowledge (XXG):FAKEARTICLE
255:, daughter of US President
806:
679:(deleting temporarily for
650:For deletion of an article
485:Is the person notable for
410:Knowledge (XXG):Pseudocode
399:
381:
232:
169:
82:
26:
655:
572:
451:is notable, but that the
429:
303:Is the information given
753:Knowledge (XXG):Coatrack
693:Keep the article deleted
116:This page in a nutshell:
18:Knowledge (XXG):DONOHARM
593:(temporary removal per
785:Knowledge (XXG) essays
555:policy in an article.
476:Virginia Tech massacre
508:neutral point of view
494:Neutral point of view
449:event or organization
445:individual themselves
153:neutral point of view
73:, as it has not been
518:Ethics and consensus
188:Information about a
577:Internet phenomenon
547:Suggested procedure
470:Was the person the
378:Pseudo-biographies
336:Internet phenomena
320:"coatrack" article
644:three-revert rule
604:as detailed above
421:full and balanced
229:An inclusion test
130:
129:
103:
102:
35:discussions, see
16:(Redirected from
797:
730:Related policies
524:ignore all rules
512:reliable sources
487:any other events
461:Madeleine McCann
394:
349:Madeleine McCann
316:pseudo-biography
277:reliable sources
245:
219:reliable sources
182:
112:
111:
105:
95:
52:
51:
45:
21:
805:
804:
800:
799:
798:
796:
795:
794:
770:
769:
727:
719:deletion review
683:, will discuss)
652:
635:
627:BLP Noticeboard
573:described above
561:
549:
520:
496:
465:Damilola Taylor
417:
398:
397:
390:
386:
380:
345:Damilola Taylor
332:
249:
248:
241:
237:
231:
186:
185:
178:
174:
168:
109:
99:
98:
91:
87:
79:
78:
49:
43:
40:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
803:
801:
793:
792:
787:
782:
772:
771:
768:
767:
761:
755:
744:
743:
738:
726:
723:
710:
709:
706:
705:
704:
686:
666:
663:
656:inclusion test
651:
648:
634:
631:
619:
618:
615:
600:
560:
557:
548:
545:
519:
516:
495:
492:
491:
490:
483:
468:
430:inclusion test
396:
395:
387:
382:
379:
376:
331:
328:
324:
323:
300:
281:
257:George W. Bush
247:
246:
238:
233:
230:
227:
184:
183:
180:WP:NOTATABLOID
175:
170:
167:
164:
128:
127:
113:
101:
100:
97:
96:
88:
83:
80:
68:
67:
55:
53:
41:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
802:
791:
788:
786:
783:
781:
778:
777:
775:
765:
762:
759:
756:
754:
751:
750:
749:
748:
742:
739:
737:
734:
733:
732:
731:
724:
722:
720:
715:
707:
702:
697:
696:
694:
690:
687:
684:
682:
675:
671:
667:
664:
661:
660:
659:
657:
649:
647:
645:
641:
632:
630:
628:
624:
616:
613:
612:third opinion
609:
605:
601:
598:
596:
590:
586:
582:
581:
580:
578:
574:
570:
566:
558:
556:
554:
546:
544:
542:
537:
531:
529:
525:
517:
515:
513:
509:
505:
501:
493:
488:
484:
481:
477:
473:
469:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
441:
440:
437:
435:
434:notable event
431:
425:
422:
415:
411:
407:
403:
393:
389:
388:
385:
377:
375:
371:
369:
364:
360:
358:
354:
353:The Bus Uncle
350:
346:
340:
337:
329:
327:
321:
317:
313:
308:
306:
301:
298:
294:
290:
285:
282:
278:
274:
271:
270:
269:
267:
262:
258:
254:
244:
240:
239:
236:
228:
226:
224:
220:
215:
212:
208:
204:
200:
195:
191:
181:
177:
176:
173:
165:
163:
161:
156:
154:
150:
146:
145:avoiding harm
141:
139:
135:
125:
121:
117:
114:
107:
106:
94:
90:
89:
86:
81:
76:
72:
66:
64:
60:
54:
47:
46:
38:
34:
30:
19:
746:
745:
729:
728:
713:
711:
692:
688:
678:
673:
653:
636:
622:
620:
592:
589:edit summary
568:
564:
562:
550:
535:
532:
527:
521:
497:
486:
479:
471:
452:
448:
444:
438:
433:
426:
420:
418:
372:
365:
361:
357:John Smeaton
341:
333:
325:
302:
296:
293:undue weight
288:
283:
272:
265:
250:
243:WP:HARM#TEST
216:
205:" people or
198:
193:
187:
159:
157:
148:
144:
142:
137:
131:
115:
56:
674:temporarily
299:be avoided.
280:include it.
57:This is an
774:Categories
670:notability
608:straw poll
591:, such as
541:straw poll
528:afterwards
472:main focus
453:individual
305:due weight
253:Jenna Bush
211:verifiable
63:notability
457:Bus uncle
392:WP:PSEUDO
368:talk page
312:Bus uncle
194:nonpublic
124:see below
725:See also
569:accurate
500:relevant
384:Shortcut
235:Shortcut
172:Shortcut
85:Shortcut
33:deletion
689:Discuss
672:, then
565:sourced
261:notable
190:notable
93:WP:HARM
747:Essays
681:WP:BLP
623:do not
595:WP:BLP
478:. The
203:outing
714:avoid
640:block
480:event
59:essay
699:the
585:bold
567:and
355:and
347:and
297:must
289:only
583:Be
536:not
514:).
463:or
318:or
61:on
776::
646:.
629:.
579:.
359:.
266:is
149:no
140:"
703:.
685:.
614:.
599:.
416:.
65:.
39:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.