Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy states, An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm." There are a number of conflicting interpretations of this policy, and in marginal cases it is often problematic to determine how this rule should be applied to information on living (and, in some cases, recently deceased) persons.

Information about a notable living individual can be divided broadly into two categories: public and nonpublic information. Generally speaking, nonpublic 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, Wikipedia articles should not include such information; Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and we are not in the business of "outing" people or publishing revelations about their private lives, whether such information is verifiable or not. As Wikipedia has a wider international readership than most individual newspapers, and Wikipedia 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.

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 reliable sources, but it is doubtful whether it belongs in an article. In such cases, the potential harm to the subject should be taken into account; the "Jenna Bush" test can be applied in these instances.

The "Jenna Bush" test

Jenna Bush, daughter of US President George W. Bush, was on one occasion arrested for underage drinking. As Ms. Bush is notable 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 serving politician). However, the Jenna Bush article is an example of a case where such information is appropriate for inclusion; as such, the "Jenna Bush test" can be applied to other parallel situations. The factors to take into account are:

1. Is the information already widely known? If it has appeared in numerous mainstream reliable sources over a period of months, 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 include it.
2. Is the information definitive and factual? Wikipedia 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 only be included in Wikipedia where they have already been widely publicised by the mainstream news media; in these cases, the allegations should not be given undue weight. In circumstances where a person has been charged with a crime, it is acceptable for Wikipedia to give details of the ongoing investigation and/or trial, but speculation must be avoided.
3. Is the information given undue weight in relation to the subject's notability? 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, 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 Bus uncle), it may be inappropriate to write a biography on them at all, as this may develop into a pseudo-biography or "coatrack" article. Instead, such content may be merged into a main article on the event.

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.

In some cases, a person is notable primarily for a single event in their life. This may be the case with the subjects of Internet phenomena 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 their names, and/or any other biographical details about them which are not relevant to the case.

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 Damilola Taylor and Madeleine McCann. Likewise, if the victim of an Internet phenomenon has received detailed and significant coverage in the news media, it may be appropriate to include their name; an example of this is the Bus uncle.

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, it may be appropriate to mention their name in the article, but it is unlikely that they merit a full biography.

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 talk page. 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. The only exception to this is in obviously frivolous cases, such as the redaction of names from a featured article.

Pseudo-biographies

An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's life. If the person is notable only in connection with a single event or position 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 to the event article placing the information in context. If the event itself is not notable enough for an article, and the person was only noted in connection with it, it's very likely that there is no reason to cover that person at all. Events which are only of passing notability, or whose status as an event of enduring and historic significance is not yet known, should be covered on Wikinews, not Wikipedia, until it is clear that the event is of lasting and historic significance.

In general, creating a pseudo-biography (on an individual who is only notable because of their participation in a single event) will require the inclusion of other biographical material, e.g. their date of birth and family background. Such information, in many cases, will fail the Jenna Bush test, as it is unlikely to have been widely publicised in the media. When in doubt, concentrate on the notable event, rather than invading privacy for the sake of "padding out" an unnecessary biography.

The general test that should be applied in such cases is as follows:

• Do any reliable sources cover the individual themselves 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 event or organization is notable, but that the individual 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 Bus uncle. On the other hand, if the person themselves received substantial coverage under their own name, such as Madeleine McCann or Damilola Taylor, then they may merit a biography.
• Was the person the main focus of relevant coverage? For instance, it is not necessary to include biographies on every person who was present at the Virginia Tech massacre. The event is notable; individual people are not.
• Is the person notable for any other events in their life? In most cases, as noted above, a person who is only notable for one event does not merit a full biography under their name.

In applying the principle of "do no harm", it is often tempting for an editor to take controversial actions under the principle of ignore all rules. 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 afterwards, and reversed if there is a clear consensus to do so.

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 not helpful in these circumstances, as the temporary absence of the names is unlikely to significantly damage Wikipedia's credibility. The names should be restored if there is a clear consensus to do so; a straw poll may be helpful in gauging consensus.

Administrators

Unlike regular users, administrators must be especially careful to discuss their actions in a case about which they feel strongly. In cases regarding a potentially controversial biography of a living individual, administrators may delete an article in order to prevent a potential invasion of privacy. However, they should immediately discuss this and seek consensus with other editors.

The "two-admin rule"

In cases where an administrative action taken under the biographies of living persons policy is likely to be controversial, it is appropriate for the administrator in question to discuss it with at least one uninvolved administrator after carrying out the action. The material can remain deleted while the discussion takes place.

This may seem unfair to non-administrators, but the presumption in favour of privacy means that sensitivity should be observed in these cases, and controversial material should not be undeleted immediately.

The following are suggestions for the possible courses of action you can follow if you see a suspected violation of the biographies of living persons policy in an article. These are not binding, but they are useful guidelines in almost all cases.

For removal of sourced content

If you see material in a biography that is sourced and accurate, but may fail the "Jenna Bush test" (see above), 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 Internet phenomenon.

1. Be bold and remove the content. Use a non-aggressive edit summary, such as (temporary removal per WP:BLP, will discuss on talk page).
2. Discuss it on the talk page, apply the "Jenna Bush test", and try to determine consensus. A straw poll may be helpful at this stage, as may a third opinion.
3. Only restore the content if there is a clear and unequivocal consensus to do so.

If you see a removal of such content, and you disagree with the removal, do not edit-war to restore the information. Instead, participate in the discussion on the talk page.

For removal of unsourced or dubious content

Unsourced or dubious content, especially if potentially libellous, should simply be removed on sight from biographies of living persons. This includes content that comes from unreliable sources, such as blogs or attack sites. See the policy on reliable sources for details of this issue. Editors who repeatedly reinsert unsourced or poorly sourced material about a living person are subject to a block from editing, and edits which remove such content are exempt from the three-revert rule.

For deletion of an article

Administrators should, as noted above, exercise special care in using their administrative tools without prior consensus. In cases where an administrator finds it necessary to immediately delete content under the guidelines laid out under the biographies of living persons policy and this essay, they should follow the two-admin rule.

If you are an administrator, and you see an article on a living individual where most or all of the content fails the "Jenna Bush test" (see above), then you can follow these steps.

1. First, try removing the offending content from the article, and see what is left.
2. If the remaining content contains no evidence of notability, then temporarily delete the article. Use a non-aggressive edit summary, such as (deleting temporarily per WP:BLP, will discuss).
3. Discuss the deletion with at least one other administrator. (See the two-admin rule above.) Alternatively, discuss it at the administrators' noticeboard. Keep the article deleted while the discussion is taking place; administrators can access the deleted material, so it does no harm to leave it deleted.
4. If there is consensus among administrators that the deletion was unjustified, restore the article.

If you are an administrator and you disagree with a deletion of this nature, do not reverse the deletion without discussion. Discuss it with the administrator who performed the deletion, and if disagreement still exists after attempting this, on the administrators' noticeboard.

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons