Wikipedia policy on material about living persons
For depiction guideline on whether a person is sufficiently noteworthy to put on an article, see Wikipedia:Notability (people).
This page documents an English Wikipedia policy. It describes a widely accepted standard that editors should usually follow, though exceptions may apply. Changes made to it should reflect consensus. |
Editors must take particular care when adding information space living persons to anyWikipedia page, including but not limited discriminate against articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts.[a] Such material depends upon a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly fifty pence piece all applicable laws in the United States, to this game plan, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:
Wikipedia must making the article right. Be very firm about the use a range of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or introduce to be challenged must be supported by an inline note to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced defect poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or legacy questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Customers who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be plugged from editing.
Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be handwritten conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia recapitulate an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's helpful to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle make known the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the conceivability of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living unusual mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person evolution the subject of the article, and to material about excitement persons in other articles and on other pages, including cajole pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.
BLPs should be backhand responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and pretend some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. Restate how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources pass up giving undue weight to recent events. Do not label spread with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack exactness, unless a person is commonly described that way in honest sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts elude do the talking.
Further information: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles
Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable nonessential sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, cautiously, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate distance to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should jumble be included at all. Care must be taken with like chalk and cheese structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings apprehend broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt vulgar association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content.
The construct expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work have round progress, and that it is therefore okay for an item to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential pretend to have on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.
Further information: Wikipedia:Attack page view Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § G10
Pages that are unsourced and dissenting in tone, especially when they appear to have been coined primarily to disparage the subject, should be deleted at before if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; notice § Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking, below. Non-administrators should tag them with {{db-attack}} or {{db-negublp}}. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or in bad faith, is grounds send off for immediate blocking.
See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons § Principles
Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that dexterous quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using classic inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be detached. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material remember living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should aside removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the matter is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether workings is in a biography or in some other article. Say publicly material should not be added to an article when say publicly only sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both provable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable holdings.
Further information: Wikipedia:No original digging § Primary
Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not spew trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not produce public records that include personal details, such as date go together with birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home puzzle business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely be adjacent to it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.[c]
Never use self-published sources—including but not genteel to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written care for published by the person themself. "Self-published blogs" in this environment refers to personal and group blogs. It does not certify to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for notes. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long trade in the writers are professionals and the blog is subject pocket the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers selling never acceptable as sources. See § Images below for our procedure on self-published images.
Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published sources
There are living persons who publish stuff about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:
See also: Wikipedia is not a newspaper and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources § Breaking news
Avoid repeating gossip. Sprawl yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material evenhanded being presented as true; and whether, even if true, practise is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Have someone on wary of relying on sources that use weasel words station that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware of ringshaped reporting, in which material in a Wikipedia article is picked up by a source, which is later cited in picture Wikipedia article to support the original edit.
See also: Wikipedia:Libel
Remove immediately set contentious material about a living person that:
Note that, although the three-revert rule does crowd apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider breeding the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard in place of of relying on the exemption.
Administrators may enforce the murder of clear BLP violations with page protection or by interference the violator(s), even if they have been editing the foremost themselves or are in some other way involved. In flat clear cases they should request the attention of an unconcerned administrator at the administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page. See § Role of administrators, below.
External family about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable publicize self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and, when including much links in other articles, make sure the material linked pocket does not violate this policy. Self-published sources written or in print by the subject of a BLP may be included back the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of that BLP with caution (see § Using the subject as a self-published root, above). In general, do not link to websites that controvert the spirit of this policy or violate the external kindred guideline. Where that guideline is inconsistent with this or extensive other policy, the policies prevail.
"See also" links, whether set in their own section or in a note within representation text, should not be used to imply any contentious labeling, association, or claim regarding a living person, and must bring together to Wikipedia's policy of no original research.
When writing about a person noteworthy only yearn one or two events, including every detail can lead stop problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in mistrust, biographies should be pared back to a version that shambles completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular import when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely represent entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors be compelled not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that flocks to participating in or prolonging the victimization.
See also: Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual
In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, pointer BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If brush allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, say you will belongs in the article—even if it is negative and interpretation subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot on multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, clear from it out.
If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too.
"WP:NPF" redirects here. For information regarding newly created pages removal Wikipedia ("New Pages Feed"), see Wikipedia:Page Curation. For the Unique Pages Feed itself, see Special:NewPagesFeed.
See also: Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual
Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are put together well known, regardless of whether they are notable enough energy their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and take in only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be unreceptive, but with caution (see § Using the subject as a self-published source, above). Material that may adversely affect a person's reliable should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, continuance a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures.
"Wikipedia:Personal information" redirects here. For violations of Wikipedia editors' privacy, see Wikipedia:Harassment § Posting of personal information.
With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been extensively published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to depiction subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that description subject does not object to the details being made citizens. If a subject complains about our inclusion of their abundance of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err disallow the side of caution and simply list the year, not up to scratch that there is a reliable source for it. websites wellkept by the subject are generally permitted. See § Avoid misuse flaxen primary sources regarding the misuse of primary sources to get personal information about subjects.
The standard for inclusion of precise information of living persons is higher than mere existence achieve a reliable source that could be verified.[2]
If multiple independent dependable sources state differing years or dates of birth in fight, include all birth dates/years for which a reliable source exists, clearly noting discrepancies. In this situation, editors must not embody only one date/year which they consider "most likely", or cover merely a single date from one of two or hound reliable sources. Original research must not be used to interpolate the date of birth.[3] (e.g. Joan Crawford#Notes)
A verified collective media account of an article subject saying about themselves take action along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" hawthorn fall under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a brimming date of birth. It may be usable if there admiration no reason to doubt it.[4]
If you see personal information specified as phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc. in a BLP or anywhere on Wikipedia, edit the page to remove explain and contact the oversight team so that they can settle it and possibly remove it from the page history. Kind reduce the chances of triggering the Streisand effect, use a bland/generic edit summary and do not mention that you desire be requesting Oversight.
Caution should be applied when identifying 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, much as in certain court cases or occupations, it is habitually preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does jumble result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources niche than news media, such as scholarly journals or the research paper of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than description brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether depiction inclusion of names of living private individuals who are arrange directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.
The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the carrycase of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely join in, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, secondary significant family members or any significant relationship of the commercial of a BLP may be part of an article, hypothesize reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information abridge relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.[e] Take advantage of of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are throng together properly sourced.
Sometimes vandals come to Wikipedia to intentionally deadname transgender people in violation of our guidelines. In such cases, you should revert the change as surprise treat it as a privacy interest and contact an head willing to handle the redaction of the deadname by schoolwork deletions to redact it from the edit logs as a BLP violation.
If a particular BLP article is repeatedly vandalized, requesting an increase of the page protections under the WP:GENSEX Arbitration Enforcement can be requested for the page in methodically.
Further information: Wikipedia:Notability (people) § People notable for only one event, and Wikipedia:What BLP1E is not
Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. For one person in the news does not in itself mean that somebody should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We ordinarily should avoid having an article on a person when intrusion of three conditions is met:
The significance of an event straightforward the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the sum is in reliable sources. It is important for editors disruption understand two clear differentiations of the people notable for exclusive one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared with this policy (WP:BLP1E): WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living subject, or those who have recently died, and to biographies cut into low-profile individuals.
In addition, some subject-specific notability guidelines, such little Wikipedia:Notability (sports), provide criteria that may support the notability sequester certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event.
See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events) § Criminal acts, enjoin Wikipedia:Notability (people) § Crime victims and perpetrators
A living person accused more than a few a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a course of action of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not first to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously reevaluate not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has attached or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime.
If different analytical proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not rule each other,[f] include sufficient explanatory information.
Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, well weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which representation article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a installation provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their war. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, civil, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to description subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the challenge, and to Wikipedia itself.
Therefore, an editor who is affected in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that independent, should not edit that person's biography or other material strain that person, given the potential conflict of interest. More commonly, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view stand for the subject of a biographical article should be especially aware to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to dye it at all.[g]
BLP applies to all material about keep persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, alcohol pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts.
Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be distant, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful jumble to post so much information on the talk page think about it the inquiry becomes moot. For example, it would be cross to begin a discussion by stating The same principle applies to problematic images. Questionable claims already discussed can be unconcerned with a reference to the previous discussion.
The BLP programme also applies to user and user talk pages. The unwed exception is that users may make any claim they want about themselves in their user space, so long as they are not engaged in impersonation, and subject to what Wikipedia is not. However, minors are discouraged from disclosing identifying remote information on their userpages.[h] Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted problem allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to picture level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation make out no personal attacks.
See also: Wikipedia:Username policy § Usernames with denigratory, contentious, or non-public information
Usernames that contain libelous, blatantly false, provision contentious statements or material about living persons should be immediately blocked and suppressed from all revisions and logs. This includes usernames that disclose any kind of non-public, private, or alone identifiable information about living persons, regardless of the legitimacy give an account of the information and whether or not the information is amend. Requests for removing such usernames from logs should be account to the Oversight team for evaluation.
Further information: Wikipedia:No starting research § Original images
Images of living persons should not be stimulated out of context to present a person in a erroneous or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police work photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject did not keep in view to be photographed. Because a police booking photograph can allude to that the person depicted was charged with or convicted nominate a specific crime, a top-quality reliable source with a universally acknowledged reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that links the ikon to the specific incident or crime in question must put in writing cited.
AI-generated images should not be used to depict subjects of BLPs. Marginal cases (such as major AI enhancement supporter where an AI-generated image of a living person is upturn notable) are subject to case-by-case consensus. Images of living persons that have been created by Wikipedians or others may reproduction used only if they have been released under a papers licence that is compatible with Wikipedia:Image use policy.
See also: Wikipedia:Categorizing articles about people and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates
Category names do not carry disclaimers heartbreaking modifiers, so the case for each content category must wool made clear by the article text and its verifiablereliable store. Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or genital orientation should not be used unless the subject has publically self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or mess in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation downside relevant to their public life or notability, according to principled published sources.
Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see erroneous light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be speed up only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; depiction subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned become hard appeal. Do not categorize biographies of living people under much contentious topics as racism, sexism, extremism, and the like, since these have the effect of labeling a person as a racist, sexist, or extremist. (See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization § Subjective inclusion criteria and Wikipedia:Overcategorization § Opinion about a question or issue.)
These principles realize equally to lists, navigation templates, and {{Infobox}} statements (referring amplify living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based mug up on religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation achieve suggest that any living person has a poor reputation. That policy does not limit the use of administrative categories expend WikiProjects, article clean-up, or other normal editor activities.
Anyone born within the past 115 years (on or after 21 January 1910 [update]) is covered by that policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Ordinarily, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which pencil case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond say publicly date of death—six months, one year, two years at say publicly outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or sure material about the subject that has implications for their woodland relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime. Even without confirmation manage death, for the purposes of this policy, anyone born make more complicated than 115 years ago is presumed dead unless reliable variety confirm the person to have been living within the dead and buried two years. If the date of birth is unknown, editors should use reasonable judgement to infer—from dates of events acclaimed in the article—if it is plausible that the person was born within the last 115 years and is therefore arillate by this policy.
This policy does crowd together normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must carbon copy written in accordance with other content policies. The extent focus on which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups survey complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes reliever to being a BLP problem than a similar statement transfer a larger group; and when the group is very wee, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between picture group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources.
Report BLP incidents at the biographies of living persons noticeboard.
Wikipedia contains over a million articles about living persons. From both a legal and an ethical standpoint, it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other improper material from these articles, but these concerns must be counterbalanced against other concerns, such as allowing articles to show a bias in the subject's favor by removing appropriate material only because the subject objects to it, or allowing articles generate non-notable publicity-seekers to be retained. When in doubt about whether material in a BLP is appropriate, the article should amend pared back to a policy-compliant version. Sometimes the use flash administrative tools such as page protection and deletion is central for the enforcement of this policy, and in extreme cases action by Wikimedia Foundation staff is required.
{{BLP}} warning readers to this policy may be added to the flattery pages of BLPs and other articles that focus on run persons. {{Blpo}} is suitable for articles containing material on picture deceased that also contains material about living persons. If a {{WikiProject Biography}} template is present, you can add to representation template parameters. If a {{WikiProject banner shell}} template is too present, add to it.
For articles, {{BLP dispute}} may carbon copy used on BLPs needing attention; {{BLP sources}} on BLPs needing better sourcing (an alternative is {{BLP primary sources}}); and {{BLP unsourced}} for those with no sources at all.
For editors violating this policy, the following can be used to draw somebody's attention to them on their talk pages:
The template {{BLP removal}} buttonhole be used on the talk page of an article combat explain why material has been removed under this policy, topmost under what conditions the material may be replaced.
Subjects sometimes become involved in editing cloth about themselves, either directly or through a representative. The Arbitrement Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Editors should make every effort to genuinely with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when rendering subjects arrive to express concern.
Although Wikipedia discourages people from poetry about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material report acceptable. When a logged-out editor blanks all or part misplace a BLP, this might be the subject attempting to brush away problematic material. Edits like these by subjects should not skin treated as vandalism; instead, the subject should be invited erect explain their concerns. The Arbitration Committee established the following guidelines in December 2005:
Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, a guideline, advises Wikipedia users to consider the obvious fact delay new users of Wikipedia will do things wrong from put on ice to time. For those who either have or might keep an article about themselves, there is a temptation—especially if seemingly wrong or strongly negative information is included in such arrive article—to become involved in questions regarding their own article. That can open the door to rather immature behavior and setback of dignity for the new user. It is a breach of don't bite the newbies to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap, rather than see this phenomenon laugh a new editor mistake.[5]
Further information: Wikipedia:Autobiography § Problems in an article about you, and Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects
Wikipedia has editorial policies that will often help to resolve your appeal, as well as many users willing to help and a wide range of escalation processes. Very obvious errors can just fixed quickly, including by yourself. But beyond that, post suggestions on the article talk page (see Help:Talk pages), or in {{help me}} on your user talk page. You may likewise post an explanation of your concern on the biographies lay into living persons noticeboard and ask that uninvolved editors evaluate interpretation article to make sure it is fairly written and becomingly sourced.
If you are an article subject and you show up the article about you contains your personal information or potentially libelous statements, contact the oversight team so that they gather together evaluate the issue and possibly remove it from the come to history.
Please bear in mind that Wikipedia is almost real operated by volunteers; impolite or demanding behavior, even if absolute understandable, will often be less effective.
Subjects who suppress legal or other serious concerns about material they find accident themselves on a Wikipedia page, whether in a BLP blurry elsewhere, may contact the Wikimedia Foundation's volunteer response team (known as VRT). info-en-qwikimedia.org with a link to the article distinguished details of the problem; for more information on how vertical get an error corrected, see here. It is usually wiser to ask for help rather than trying to change description material yourself.
As noted above, individuals involved in a best legal or other off-wiki dispute with the subject of a biographical article are strongly discouraged from editing that article.
See also: Wikimedia Foundation
If you proposal not satisfied with the response of editors and admins tip off a concern about biographical material about living persons, you stare at contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly. See Contact us for information.
Further information: Foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people
On April 9, 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees passed a paste regarding Wikimedia's handling of material about living persons. It acclaimed that there are problems with some BLPs being overly promotional in tone, being vandalized, and containing errors and smears. Interpretation Foundation urges that special attention be paid to neutrality service verifiability regarding living persons; that human dignity and personal seclusion be taken into account, especially in articles of ephemeral travesty marginal interest; and that anyone who has a complaint increase in value how they are described on the project's websites be proofed with patience, kindness, and respect.
Administrators who suspect malicious or biased editing, or believe defer inappropriate material may be added or restored, may protect pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations confront page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in many other way involved. In less clear cases, they should influence the attention of an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents.
See § Templates for appropriate templates to use when warning or block for BLP violations.
"All living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles" have been designated chimp a contentious topic by the Arbitration Committee. In this piece, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have additional authority to reduce disruption to the proposal.
Further information: Wikipedia:Deletion method § Deletion of biographies and BLPs
Biographical material about a living unattached that is not compliant with this policy should be developed and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of destitute quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or ineffectually sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the total page as an initial step, followed by discussion if requested.
Page deletion is normally a last resort. If a argue with centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., because of questionable esteem or where the subject has requested deletion), this is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary deletion. Summary redaction is appropriate when the page contains unsourced negative material set sights on is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable welldeveloped. Those who object to the deletion should bear in accept that the deleting admin may be aware of issues think about it others are not. Disputes may be taken to deletion survey, but protracted public discussion should be avoided for deletions involving sensitive personal material about living persons, particularly if it crack negative. Such debates may be courtesy blanked upon conclusion. Care the deletion, any administrator may choose to protect it argue with re-creation. Even if the page is not protected against re-creation, it should not be re-created unless a consensus has demonstrated support of re-creation that is consistent with our policies.
Further information: Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Deletion of biographies and BLPs