What constitutes the *mostcompelling argument against including potentially libelous information in a Biography of a Living Person, even if cited to a seemingly reliable source?

The *mostcompelling argument against including potentially libelous information in a Biography of a Living Person (BLP), even if cited to a seemingly reliable source, is the *potentialfor real-world harmto the subject and the *overridingpriority of Wikipedia's responsibility to avoid causing such harm. Libel is a false and defamatory statement that harms someone's reputation. Even if a source appears reliable, Wikipedia's BLP policy places a very high burden of proof on including potentially damaging information. The policy emphasizes that the *potentialfor harm to a living person's reputation, career, or personal life outweighs the perceived encyclopedic value of including the information. If there is any doubt about the accuracy or appropriateness of the information, it should be excluded. The argument focuses not just on whether the information is technically verifiable, but on the ethical and legal implications of publishing potentially false and damaging statements. Wikipedia has a moral and legal obligation to protect living individuals from harm, and this obligation supersedes the desire to include every piece of information that might be found in a source, even a seemingly reliable one. The emphasis is on 'do no harm' as the guiding principle.