it says you must have serious evidence to back up if you make statements like these if you don't then it is a personal attack there is a lot of evidence first he said that the family didn' t grant permission which i proved untrue although later my statement was proved untrue but before presenting the bbc source had said that family didn't grant permission three times when he had made this statement for the first timr on the article's talk page ie when the discussion first started me and gandydancer proved him wrong but he still kept saying thing without any proof the bbc proof was presented much lateemr and before that even he didn't know about the proof also he said even the volunteer is against me while actually the volunteer said that it is a short community consensus and i should take a wider community consensus he didn't say that i can never include the name since the consensus involved a few users he said to take a wider consenus which includes many more users as you see i do have proof