User:Aspening/Just because something is unflattering doesn't mean it should be deleted

Wikipedia articles frequently contain content that is critical of their subjects. An article subject/person affiliated with an article subject/supporter of a particular theory may take issue with the fact that such critical information is included in the article, and take steps to get it deleted. However, information that paints the subject in a negative light or criticizes them in any way should not ordinarily be deleted, because of possible neutral point of view issues. Despite this, there are circumstances where unflattering information should be deleted, primarily related to libel.

In relation to the biographies of living persons policy
Biographies of living people are subject to extra scrutiny in terms of verifiability and privacy. If an assertion about a living person is made, especially if controversial, it MUST be backed up with credible sources. Tabloids are not credible sources, and should never be used as citations, especially not in articles about living people.

Generally speaking, controversial content that is widely covered in credible news sources may be included if presented in a neutral way. Unsourced controversial content should not be included, as it may be considered libel.

Example A: A politician is arrested and charged with multiple crimes relating to pedophilia. The story has been picked up by most mainstream news outlets in the country and region of the politician's origin, and the subsequent proceedings against the politician are widely covered by those news outlets. A user adds cited information about the charges and proceedings to Wikipedia, but the politician's spokesperson wants this information removed.

In this case, information about the allegations of pedophilia should remain in the article, but special care should be taken to present the information in a neutral way. Stating that the politician was accused of pedophilia is preferable to saying that the politician is a pedophile. Coverage of the allegations should also avoid giving them undue weight.

Example B: Rumors are going around in the capital city that a specific politician is a pedophile. However, the only media outlets supporting these allegations are tabloids and fringe blogs and websites opposed to the politician's viewpoints. A user adds information about the rumors to Wikipedia, but the politician's spokesperson wants this information removed.

Here, coverage on Wikipedia should be based on the circumstances. In some cases (for example, Pizzagate), it may be widely covered in credible sources as a fringe theory and may be included in Wikipedia if the rumors have been debunked and information about the scandal is presented in a way that reflects the rumors' fringe nature. However, users must not give them undue weight, and if creating a stand-alone page must comply with the notability guidelines for fringe theories. However, if credible sources do not cover the theory at all, even as a fringe theory, then it should probably be left off of Wikipedia. If it is added, revision deletion or oversight may be needed.

Example C: A politician's chief of staff is fired and decides to disruptively edit the politician's Wikipedia page with unsourced allegations of pedophilia. The politician's spokesperson wants this information removed.

In this case, the allegations should definitely be removed, and oversight is probably needed.