Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

people->persons

I just noticed that we used "people" all over this. It technically should be "persons" to match with BLP. The reason it's that way over at BLP is because "people" could refer to groups, "persons" always refers to individuals within groups. Gigs (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No objection here, this thought had crossed my mind while it was still being finalized, but it seemed pointless to bring it up then. Should we just move the page to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living persons, and make the appropriate changes in the article? I'm not feeling bold enough to move a policy page right now.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 04:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Backlog

It would appear that admins are not going through and processing the queue on a regular basis. More eyes at WP:PRODSUM would be helpful. Jclemens (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done The que has been cleared. J04n(talk page) 02:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You verified each one had no ELs as sourced and did at least a Google News search on anyone that looked promising, I hope? Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You asking the question makes me feel that I messed up. I did remove the prods on a few because there either was some semblance of a ref or in one case I added a ref. I didn't try to find refs on all but did if I felt they had a chance of having one. If you think I was too quick on the gun with any others please let me know. J04n(talk page) 12:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not just ask yourself, is this ever gong to be a decent biography? if the answer is yes then add a high quality cite with a fair bit of content in it in relation to the subject of the BLP. If not then leave the Prod on. Off2riorob (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

What Rob said, although I go through them with a bit more detail than that. The reason I asked here was that I want people other than me to go through with a similar level of diligence. It's easy enough to post on AN/ANI, and someone will undoubtedly come through and steamroller things. If you deprodded a few after examination, that's reasonably close to how I process things. Theoretically, everything on the PRODSUM list should not be speedyable, or it would already have been. Jclemens (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that is mostly true, but we have some editors that appear to support keeping almost anything. So you are suggesting that if an article has not been speedied then it is because of that worthy of keeping and that in that case prods should not be left on them until they are deleted. BLP not speedied so reverts to Keep? Off2riorob (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Naah. BLPPROD is purely procedural--if it has no sources, and a reasonable effort (and I gauge reasonable effort in relation to the prima facie quality and notability assertions in the unsourced article) can't find any, it goes bye-bye. That doesn't mean it's speedy, or PROD... it's something else. Thus, I'm inclined to look harder for BLPPROD sources than PROD sources, simply because it's a bright line issue. I'll probably taper off the effort as things go on, but right now, I'm not sure everyone understands that no sources == no BLP article. Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Point taken and appreciated, I believe we're on the same page. J04n(talk page) 16:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirects turned into articles

I think I've raised this before as a hypothetical inevitability, but I don't think we decided what to do about redirects turned into articles. So as we now have a live one I thought I'd say what I've done so far and suggest how we should treat these. In April a newbie turned Steven Brooks from a longstanding redirect into an article, which one could argue didn't meet the sticky prod criteria because the redirect was created before the 18th March. I have just:

1. deleted Steven Brooks per {{G6}}
2. restored the April edits and moved them to Steven W. Brooks
3. restored Steven Brooks as it was before the newbie edited it.
4. Told the newbie where their article is now.

I think that the resulting Steven W. Brooks is eligible for a sticky prod as the first edit to it was in April. Regardless of whether or not some smart alec now goes and references or AFDs Steven W. Brooks (which I think has an assertion of importance sufficient to survive A7 but I don't fancy its chances at AFD):

1. Do people accept this as a fair way to handle redirects being turned into articles?
2. Is there a less clumsy way to do this?
3. How should nonadmins tag these?

ϢereSpielChequers 11:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any suggestions. But I agree that it's eligible for the sticky prod. That's based on creation date of the biography and not of any page. Maurreen (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And I've just done the same for Ashlee Gruenberg. ϢereSpielChequers 21:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fine to tag. UBLP's created since 18 March 2010 can be BLP PRODded, so I consider it sensible to assume the date it first went from a redirect was the date it was created. I doubt you'll get anyone challenge this either. Newbies won't know the procedure and established editors know that leaving an article complete unsourced is not the way to go. If it's disputed it could go AFD and since that is tougher then adding a reference then challenging a BLP PROD is likely to be counter productive, hence it ain't going to happen much it at all. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with how you handled that, but I'm also as a loss for how we could streamline such things. Hopefully, it's infrequent enough. Jclemens (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just done the same with a dab page Benefit and Benefit (rapper). unless anyone objects in the next couple of days, I'll broaden the instructions from just redirects, add "don't create a redirect" to step 2 and add them to the project page. ϢereSpielChequers 12:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Is the consensus then that BLPPROD should be added to these articles? Active Banana (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Works for me, I see no opposition. --Joe Decker (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

WereSpeilChequers: If I'm not mistaken, move-without-createing-redirect is admin-only. --Joe Decker (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes so are deletion and restoration, hence my query - "3. How should nonadmins tag these?" ϢereSpielChequers 21:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Are sticky prod articles eligible for normal prod?

Apologies if this has been raised before, but I've only just started trying to get to grips with handling these -- If an article has adequate sources added and the sticky prod is therefore removed, is the article later eligible for prod via the normal process? Should one put the "old prod" template on the talk page? Espresso Addict (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been working on the assumption that such an article would still be eligible for a normal prod. --Joe Decker (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The short answer? Yes, they are. The longer answer? BLPPROD does not interfere with other deletion processes. However, other deletion processes do not interfere with it either. If an article has both PROD and BLPPROD tags on it, a user may contest the PROD tag for any reason but not the BLPPROD one, without adding a source. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. So one should not put the "old prod" template on the talk page, as it would still be eligible for regular prod. I think this might be worth adding to the policy page. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Logically, I'd say that an article that has a BLPprod removed because sources were added could not be considered an uncontroversial deletion and should go to AfD rather than PROD, imo. However, a deprodded article that lacks sources should still be eligible for BLPprod. Resolute 18:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I can see it both ways. I'd say, when in doubt just upgrade it straight to AfD if a BLPProd has been placed, and then addressed. Jclemens (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As there are people adding refs to stickyprodded articles to prevent them being simply deleted as unsourced, I see no problem in people subsequently prodding articles if they consider the subject to not actually be notable. Basically sticky prods are not really a type of prod, more a type of deletion that lacks the discussion of an AFD and was originally going to have the same duration as a prod. ϢereSpielChequers 21:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That's one of the problems in calling this whole process a "sticky PROD", in that one initially assumes it's a subset of PROD, and challenged PROD means it can't be PROD'ed again. I won't not delete a PRODed article with a reasonable rationale just because it's been BLPPROD'ed before... but some admins might. Jclemens (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed -- coming into this after a wikibreak, it seems illogical to call them prods (and include them in the prod summary list) when they actually have a different set of rules. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this was discussed a couple of times during their development. They have now evolved into something far enough from a prod that it would be logical to rename them - though if we do I believe the old names should redirect to the new one. ϢereSpielChequers 14:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikijargon

Can we please reword the lede, and the project page in general, to avoid using prod as a noun or verb? "Sticky prod" is a decent analogy for those intimate with the WP:PROD process, but meaningless to newcomers. Quarl ^(talk) 04:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at this, please let me know what you think.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 13:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks! Quarl ^(talk) 17:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Changes to Objecting section

There doesn't appear to have been consensus for this change, so I have reverted it. There was a huge amount of discussion and compromise to get to that wording, so I feel the original version reflected consensus. Please gain consensus before changing back.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 14:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The edit had removed all "sticky" from the sticky prod. "Good Faith" alone does not leave us with verified content. Active Banana (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree. This goes in the other direction. It permits placing a blp prod tag on essentially any biographical article whatsoever. WFor most bio sin WP, present or past, I could find reasons to object to the reliability. "is disputed"is a very weak criterion, and if the reliability is disputed in good faith, the only possible way of settling it is at afd. "if you show by existing policies and guidelines" -- sure, but how can that be decided except by a group discussion, which would have to be at either AfD or the RSN or the article talk page? Rather than just replacing the section again t I suggest we might find a compromise wording, that it can only be replaced if there is consensus to replace it, and I've made that change. But it still seems unnecessary to me to have the provision--Once there is a bona fide dispute, it takes it out of prod territory, and we might as well go directly to afd and deal with it there. My guess, btw, for most of the questionable ones of this sort, is that they'll end up deleted, ot for being unsourced, but for being non-notable even with the sources, but we need the discussions first) DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I could live with DGG's wording if it was clearer that in the case of sources that are obviously unreliable, such as facebook or MySpace, the removal of the tag can be undone without going through the RSN archives. PhilKnight (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It is basic standard policy that the WP:BURDEN is on the person adding the content to have it reliably sourced. I cannot see how with any credibility that for WP:BLP articles we would switch the standard around and make the BURDEN to provide proof of non-reliabilty of the source. Thats just crazy talk. Active Banana (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like it's turning out to be nearly as huge a problem as everyone thought it would be anyway. I haven't seen a lot of disputes about BLP PROD. AfD is always right there as a last resort, so why argue about whether the BLP PROD was proper/improper/whatever. Gigs (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Per Gigs, I changed the content back to what it was. The change NEVER allowed BLPPROD->Unsourced, it changed from BLPPROD->unsourced->BLPPROD to BLPPROD->Un(der)sourced->AfD. It actually strengthened and standardized the escalation process. I've still not seen any argument here (or in the previous discussion, which I linked to in the archives from the edit summary of my reversion) why it needs to "snap back" to BLPPROD vs. AfD. Jclemens (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Your removal of "if no such source has been provided, the tag can be re-added" defeats the entire purpose of this policy, and so is clearly wrong. PhilKnight (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the disagreement. From what I can see the version PhilKnight favors[1] is closer to what was discussed earlier than Gigs' version. To remove a sticky prod requires more than just adding any old source, it has to be a legit attempt to save the article. I don't like the exact wording of the PhilKnight version, it seems to be a little too heavy and specific on the process for deciding on whether a source is appropriate. But whatever wording we choose I think we should make mention that the source has to be at least arguably valid - it has to be arguably legitimate, and source something that's actually in the article. Posting a myspace link or your own personal blog doesn't cut it. If there's any reasonable doubt about the source's reliability, or if there's some other reason to delete the article, it can go to a normal PROD or to AfD. But if there's no reasonable argument that the source is legit, the sticky prod tag can be added back. I know there was a lot of back-and-forth on this and now isn't a great time to re-open the debate on whether a source is acceptable. That it has to be added in good faith probably goes without saying - there's a good faith standard for everything here. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Why yes, it does cut it, at least as far as this specific deletion process goes. If the source is inadequate, a full discussion of its inadequacies is appropriate, such that the editor who added it and de-blp-prodded the article has time to respond to the allegations the source is inaccurate. This is designed to be a lightweight process, with no built-in discussion process. We already have that process, and it works reasonably well: Articles for Deletion. Every contested PROD, speedy, and BLPPROD should be sent there--not to give a doomed article an extra week's lease on life, but because at least one other editor appeared to believe in good faith that the article should exist and can be fixed. If they're obviously completely incorrect or acting in bad faith, SNOW closures are appropriate. (I entirely disagree with WP:NOTEARLY, BTW). Adding extra process to BLPPROD defeats its sole purpose: streamlined removal of BLPs that no one cares enough about to have sourced at all. MySpace isn't a reliable source, but it is a source. Jclemens (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I am having a very hard time reconciling the justification "MySpace isn't a reliable source, but it is a source." with We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Active Banana (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand Jclemens's argument at all. If someone includes a MySpace source and removes the tag, the most sensible approach is to re-add the tag. PhilKnight (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Done by reasonable & good faith editors re-adding BLP-PROD tag isn't a problem. However there will always few cases of editors contesting any source regardless their reliability to have specific articles deleted through BLP-PROD and also case of editors removing the tag and adding the same unreliable source ad nauseam. In such cases sending article to AfD would clear both reliability of the sources & the relevance of the subject. This would be better than edit war around the sources/references & the tag. So my position would be re-add the tag in most case but send to AfD if edit war around sources & BLP-PROD tag. --KrebMarkt 18:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Phil, allow me to be clear: BLPPROD is only for things that are completely unsourced. If it's sourced badly, it goes to AfD, or a regular PROD process. Active Banana, your quote is inapplicable: no one is arguing that badly sourced BLPs be kept--just that this isn't the process to delete badly sourced BLPs. Please go back and review the BLP RfC consensus--to the extent that some are attempting to extend this process to cover inadequately sourced BLPs, they are doing so without community consensus.

• CSD for lack of notability, context, or content. Escalations can be PRODed or go to AfD.
• CSD for attack pages. Escalations can simply be re-tagged or go to ANI, BLPN, etc. as the situation warrants.
• BLPPROD for BLPs that assert notability (i.e., not A7able) but have no sources at all. Escalations go to AfD.
• PROD for any policy based reason whatsoever, escalations go to AfD.
• AfD for any policy based reason whatsoever, escalations go to DrV.

BLPPROD cannot be considered in isolation. It's not the only tool to deal with BLPs, it's a 4th tool, added to a toolkit of three other established processes, and it doesn't need to overlap with them in any way: they already work fine and are well-understood by the community. Jclemens (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Phil, see this archived discussion for an example of how the "just readd the tag" works badly. Jclemens (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) "Please go back and review the BLP RfC consensus" I am pretty certain that the consensus reflected that simply slapping on an inappropriate "source" such as myspace link was not sufficient to "unsticky" the process. Can you point me to where you feel consensus landes elsewhere? Active Banana (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens, this process is designed for biographies of living persons that don't have a reliable source. Whether there is an external link to a personal webpage or MySpace is immaterial. If the tag is removed without adding a reliable source, the entire point is that is can be readded, that's why it's called sticky prod. PhilKnight (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:IDHT--this page is for BLPs that don't have any source at all. You saying the same thing again doesn't change that. Again, the "stickiness" applies to the deletion process not just the tag. If the tag is removed without any source at all, then by all means readd it. But if the tag is removed concurrently with an inadequate source, the process no longer applies because it has a BAD source, not NO source, thus AfD is the escalation point. Jclemens (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I increasingly feel we are discussing seperate policies. From the policy I'm talking about: "BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article". PhilKnight (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so I should have changed the lead to match when I fixed the process. Granted. Now what? Actually, a more concrete question: Why do you think a BLPPROD contested in good faith but inadequately should go back HERE vs. AFD? Jclemens (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing you haven't seen the current version of the policy. PhilKnight (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I like your version, and I've proposed a wording tweak. This is definitely progress. Jclemens (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Active Banana, an inadequate source triggers this process into AfD, just like de-PRODding a normally unsourced non-BLP article does. Do not get hung up on this deletion process--the deletion ecosystem (if you will) is sticky in more circumstances than this particular process is. Jclemens (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

What the RFC closing said...

"A new PROD-like process should be designed to handle new unsourced BLPs (those written after the final approval of the process). Modifying the current PROD for this purpose has been soundly rejected. The BLP PROD should, in general, not be removable without sufficient addition of sources. What "sufficient" constitutes must be determined by the community. In addition, there appears to be a consensus significant minority who feel that the nominator should make a good faith effort to look for sources before nominating. The community will have to determine whether or not this is a valid part of the new process."

Thus, the closing statement of the RfC gives no particular teeth to the assertion that MySpace links are invalid. Nor does it address how the process is to be "sticky"--whether this process is to be sticky, or whether the move towards deletion is sticky is undefined. Those arguing that the RfC demands that this process be sticky simply aren't able to point to the RFC as a governing authority, vs. the consensus since developed on this page. Jclemens (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your latest edit - we seem to be getting somewhere. PhilKnight (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I'm good with the change. I'm going to take a break and go play for the afternoon, and see whether everyone else likes it. Jclemens (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If the closing statement that "sufficient" is to be determined by the community is more than window-dressing, we have to set a threshold for what is considered sufficient. If the RfC results permitted a null threshold, meaning "any source is sufficient", the statement would not have been worded that way. Taking it a step farther, "sufficient" has to at least meet the background level of good faith, reasonableness, and commonsense that applies to everything we do here, or else, again, it is no requirement at all. Sources cannot be added indiscriminately, or to play wikigames. Myspace usually stands in Wikipedia debate for a source that is so unreliable that nobody could reasonably argue otherwise (in a broad sense, at least). Whatever standard we use for a sufficient source, if there is a standard Myspace would not meet it. I think the new "borderline cases" / "questionable reliability" is as reasonable a standard as any. A suggested tweak:

if no such source has been provided, the tag can may be re-added. When practical, revert to the original expiration date;

however, in borderline cases, such as where a source of arguable but questionable reliability has been added, it's recommended to list the article the article should be listed instead at Articles for Deletion

- Wikidemon (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wikidemon, I think your changes would help clarify the situation. PhilKnight (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've made this change.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

User warning series for those who remove BLPPRODs without removing sources

I'm not sure if this is the correct venue to file such a request, but if it is not please direct me to the appropriate one. I've been doing some BLPPRODing recently, and they are occasionally removed without actually adding sources. Could somebody make up a user warning template series to warn those that remove them, so I do not have to make a custom message every time? I would do so, but am quite clueless when it comes to templates. Regards, --NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

A fair number of BLPPRODs are added to articles that do have sources, albeit sometimes in external links as general sources rather than as the preferred inline citations. It is entirely appropriate to remove a BLPPROD that was misapplied, for an article that does include sources. I remove such BLPPRODs when i come across them. Sometimes this is for some crummy articles, but they do have a source. I don't know whether that has happened for any of yours. --doncram (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. On two or three occasions, however, where no sources at all are applied, people have removed the prods. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Yes, I know that i saw discussion of the need for, and perhaps also specific proposals, for a series of warning-type notices/templates, when the BLP PROD was under development, in its "workshop" development/discussion area. Maybe this is in links available at wp:URBLP? Were templates for these actually developed? Sorry i myself didn't focus more on that. --doncram (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Are we broadening this to poorly sourced?

I've gone through the currently prodded articles and found several where the article was prodded despite being poorly sourced rather than completely unsourced. Requiring a reliable source to remove a sticky prod but only "one source directly supporting the material" to prevent it is an inelegant compromise. If we are going to continue that compromise I suggest we make it clearer in the lead that poorly sourced articles are exempt. Alternatively is consensus or at least common practice shifting to sticky prod all new BLPs that don't have a reliable source? If so I would like to suggest that we make the process a little less newbie biting by making it more like an A1 or A3 tag - not to be applied in the first minutes after an article has been created. ϢereSpielChequers 23:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur. When we have fixed all UNSOURCED benign BLPs, then we can go back and tackle the POORLY SOURCED benign ones. Poorly sourced or unsourced contentious BLPs, of course, skip this process entirely and go straight to G10. Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

When we've resolved this lot frankly I'd rather go on to an area where there are more problematic articles than the ones tagged as {{refimproveBLP}}, - but as long as we don't have some arbitrary deadline on a particular backlog then are we are all free to edit where we will. However back to the subject in hand, do we want to make it clearer that poorly sourced articles are exempt from stickyprods or do we want to broaden sticky prods to new BLPs that don't have a reliable source? ϢereSpielChequers 22:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm very uncomfortable removing a prod (sticky or otherwise) or an unreferenced tag from an article without at least one reliable source. So yes I would be in favor of broadening. J04n(talk page) 23:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Was it PRODed after there was a "source" in the article or was the "source" added after the PROD but the person who added the "source" did not not remove the PROD? I know that there have been times when I have added a very weak source and left the PROD tag on because the source still did not in any way bring the article to WP:N or otherwise verify much of anything in the article itself and so I was not challenging the PROD. Active Banana (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

These were cases where the source was there before the prod was added. I also found instances where reliable sources had been subsequently added and the sticky prod could now be removed, and ones where primary or self published sources had been added and in these cases I left the sticky prod but changed the other tags. But those are cases where things are working and the tag was correctly applied, my concern is that we have some cases where the tag is being incorrectly applied. ϢereSpielChequers 12:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'd favor leaving the sticky prod only for unsourced articles, not poorly sourced ones. Hobit (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
• Me too. There's a huge grey area where the article is only partially sourced, or only sourced to unreliable sources or non-independent sources, where whether or not deletion is merited depends IMO largely on how contentious the biography is. For example, an article about a living academic that contains no personal information beyond date of birth, university degrees & academic affiliations but is only sourced to the person's CV/resumé & publications list -- not an independent source, but to my mind probably acceptable. Or an actor with no personal information beyond date of birth, which gives a list of roles and is sourced only to IMDb. In these cases tagging the article for improvement of references or taking it to AfD would seem appropriate, not BLP prodding. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
• I also favour restricting sticky prod to completely unsourced articles, not least because the reliability of a source is not always self-evident. If we're going to have to have a debate over whether a given source is reliable, better to have it at AfD. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This said, clearly the current wording of the policy requires a reliable source - so this discussion may be rather after the fact. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that to remove the tag once applied requires addition of a reliable source, but to place the tag in the first place requires the article to be completely unsourced. Thus said, I have observed BLP-prodders removing unreliable sources and then BLP-prodding -- I think it's borderline whether that's supported by the policy. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see - subtle. Thanks for the clarification. I see now why this section isn't redundant to the "Changes to the Objecting section" conversation above. So yes, I still advocate keeping the requirement that the article be totally unsourced before the sticky prod tag can first be added. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "poorly sourced" is not something that can be decided except by consensus. Many of the articles are indeed very poorly sourced, but that does not mean they cannot be improved further. Even if all web sources available on the open web have been checked , there may be more next month, or next year. And for almost none of the people involved have non-web sources been investigated. Anyone removing sources and then putting on a delete tag is not doing straightforward work--such tactics have been consistently criticized at AfD. Leave the poor sources in, and take it to AfD and explain why they are inadequate. if the article is to be deleted, we need to see all the sources available. When I confirm BLP prods for deletion, I check for that, and will revert and unprod if I see it. DGG ( talk ) 08:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There's also the big problem of non-English sources. A lot of the articles where I've failed to find suitable sources with a 5 second websearch are Hindi or Chinese; they might be best taken to AfD where the relevant country projects will often be able to find/check out sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"Poorly sourced" has been decided by consensus: Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources bans even "Questionable" sources from being used for BLPs; removing those sources and any contentious material they support is demanded by that policy. If there are no sources left in the article, after following the BLP removal requirement, then it is eligible for BLPPROD in my view. Of course, per this policy, if there is a dispute about whether a source is reliable, the article should not be BLPPRODed, but taken to AfD for discussion.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 23:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

A "reliable" source is required to remove the tag because we could not come to agreement on another term to use that would prevent a patently unreliable source (such as an open wiki) from bumping the BLPPROD. That's also why the Objecting section specifically requires AfD when there is any question about the reliability of a source.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing patently unreliable sources and then BLP prodding if there's nothing left is obviously sensible. But there's such a large grey area as to what's sufficiently reliable for the degree of contentiousness of the article that I feel this avenue is open to misuse. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Nominating section

I have made a couple of changes to the nominating section to try to encourage editors to use other deletion processes when they are more applicable. Feedback is welcomed.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 23:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Are external links "sources"

I think there needs to be clarification in the policy about whether things that are branded "External link" count as sources. I've been flagging some articles which only have an external link, under the belief that branding something "External link" indicates that it is a place to go for related information, rather than being the source of the information in the article. Not all links are sources, nor all sources links. Others clearly disagree... and I think it's a viable enough question that it should be cleared up in the text of the policy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"Source" is used to mean "source for a claim made in an article" as a rule. External links may, or may not, have backing for claims in the article, but all cites must back what the claim is. Collect (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

An external link is a source for purposes of BLPPROD. If you review the external link and think they aren't notable, kick things into the normal PROD process (or AfD if that PROD is challenged). Jclemens (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think external links can be treated as sources. If it's obvious that the link covers a substantive part of the article, the link should just be moved to references rather than BLP prodding. If the link appears irrelevant to the article content, then BLP prodding would seem appropriate. It seems to depend on whether there is a source for at least some parts of the article, rather than whether that source is labelled "External link" or "Reference", or indeed just dumped at the bottom. I don't think sentence-by-sentence or even paragraph-by-paragraph citations are necessary to avoid BLP prodding, though obviously contentious statements should always be supported by citations. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Many of these articles are written by newbies who will make newbie mistakes. If there is a link in the article and it supports one of the statements about the person then as I understand it it counts - whether they've put it in the references section, the external links, the infobox or even the image caption should not in my view be held against them. I was going to add something about how we judge implausible links to offline sources, but when I think about it, sadly I really don't see that many new articles that cite offline sources. ϢereSpielChequers 00:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Espresso Addict, let's be perfectly clear here: ANY source at all renders BLPPROD moot. To be eligible for BLPPROD, an article must1) have no sources whatsoever--no refs, no ELs, no offline citations, etc. and 2) Be about a living person. Everything else can go to PROD or AfD; the entire point of BLPPROD is that it lets us clean up a large number of articles with little discussion and a lightweight process. If a discussion, judgment call, or decision is needed, AfD is the proper venue. Jclemens (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we're ~100% in agreement, Jclemens? Links to sources that clearly don't mention the person at all should just be removed before BLP prodding. Contentious statements that aren't covered by sources (and where sources can't be readily found) should simply be removed from the article; they don't render the article BLP proddable. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This is how I see it should be, and what I have been doing to date:

• If an External link is clearly a reference within the meaning and definition of WP:RS, the relevant place in the prose should be located, and an inline ref established which will then appear correctly in the References section.
• If an External link merely provides further information on the topic and not directly on the subject of the article, and if it is the only link or reference to anything outside Wikipedia, the page gets BLPPRODed as being completely unsourced.
• If an inline ref that appears in the reflist section merely provides further information on the topic and not directly on the subject of the article, it gets removed to the External links section, thus leaving the article unsourced and a candidate for a PROD

If I'm in the slightest doubt, it gets a normal PROD with rationale.--Kudpung (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles created before 18 March 2010

Should the blpprod template be used on article created before the specified date? Or will I just tag it as being an unsourced BLP? thanks Mo ainm~Talk 18:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's right the blpprod is only for new articles, older ones can be tagged as unreferencedBLPs ϢereSpielChequers 18:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it's only for those created later. You can tag the article as unsourced, or -- if references can't readily be found and the subject appears insufficiently notable -- use the regular prod process or take the article to AfD. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick tagging

Is there such a thing as tagging an article for BLP PROD too quickly? When I look at my PROD process summary, a lot of my normal prods eventually get deleted, but it seems that most of my BLP PROD tags are contested in such a way that I see no reason to pursue the deletion process any further (that is, the creator finds a reference and inserts it, thereby complying with the BLP policy). Which leads me to wonder whether I should wait for a while before BLP-prodding an article I come across while on new page patrol. Any comments? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not posting it too quickly - it's giving a proper alert on a posted article, and letting the editor know there's still something they have to do. If canceling the prod were more difficult, I could see a "too early" concern, but all the person adding a ref has to do is remove one line of text. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. It's better to let them know before they might disappear. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

the creator finds a reference and inserts it, thereby complying with the BLP policy - That's kind of the point of the process. The goal isn't to get rid of the articles, its to get them sourced. Mr.Z-man 03:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by too quickly. Some of these articles don't get spotted for weeks, others get tagged in the first few minutes before the author has a chance to save their second sentence. As the vast majority of the sourcing is being done by other editors I think we should forget about the idea of tagging the article before the author logs off, much better to leave it a few minutes and not drive the newbie away. Once its been up an hour then I'd agree its fair game. ϢereSpielChequers 13:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually spotted one. I did try to find sources as a matter of course. I have no idea why the article popped up on my watchlist however - I assumed it was one previously deleted to do that. So I am to blame for a rapid blpprod myself now <g>. Collect (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I was interested to see WereSpielChequers' suggestion for a minimum suggested time before raising a BLPPROD. My intuition leads me to believe that raising a quick BLPPROD should be encouraged, the article creator is free to delete it if they add a source and avoid it happening in the first place if they create articles starting with a minimum of one reliable source.

The problem with having a rule of thumb that we should leave BLPs for at least an hour (or any other time limit) is that new articles might be some form of personal attack (or libellous) but may not be self-evident as such by a first reading. Almost any information on a person might be damaging in some way and if we require BLPs to be created with at least one verifiable source this is a minimal and fairly painless barrier to ensure the most common forms of abuse are reduced (e.g. attacks against non-notable people by publishing their personal information or allegations about them). Fæ (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There are also the problems, real enough, that many, or perhaps most, BLP creators are WP:SPA and have no intention of coming back once they have logged off, while some stay online to create a whole series of unsourced one-line BLP stubs. I almost always check the page history and the creator's contribs before tagging any new BLP, but usually find that by the time I get back to the article to tag it, a drive-by has been there already. --Kudpung (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If a new BLP is a non-obvious libel or personal attack then whether we start a ten day deletion process after 10 seconds or ten hours makes little difference. My experience is that the vast majority of these articles are about young hopefuls in entertainment, sport, business and politics and where there is POV it is hagiographical rather than hateful. But if such subtle attack pages become common enough to be an issue then I would far rather reduce the ten days to nine than see them tagged in ten seconds rather than an hour or so.

As for SPAs and the proportion of article creators who return, I'd agree that a very high proportion of the people who come to Wikipedia and start by contributing a new article don't decide to continue editing, however I draw a very different conclusion from that. I think we should be more concerned about our failure to convert most good faith newbies into regular editors, and respond by trying to be more welcoming to Newbies rather than less.

I'd also add that some of us need to be more ruthless abut G10 tagging, I've deleted unsourced Bios of pornstars and mafioisi per G10 including ones that others had tagged with BLPprod, I suspect we need an AGF G10 tag - there have been several occasions where I've put a tailored message on the editors talkpage. An unreferenced article about a pornstar might be neutral or even read as written by a fan, but if it is unreferenced how do you know it isn't an attack page being used for cyber bullying? ϢereSpielChequers 10:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You make a good argument (though I still would not agree to a general rule of thumb). Is there sufficient here to propose a change to the BLPPROD guidelines? Having been called out (in edit comments) on the issue of premature BLPPRODding, it would be useful for this page to become definitive either by confirming a BLPPROD may be added as early as possible or by summarizing what the consensus is for an appropriate grace time for unsourced (yet not blatant attack page) new BLPs. An RFC might help confirm such a consensus in the wider community and if a grace period is agreed this would constrain the design of future bots and user tools. Fæ (talk) 11:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that whilst such an RFC would get a lot of attention and discussion, I very much doubt that consensus is possible whilst some people believe that applying tags quickly gets the attention of the editor and others believe that it drives newbies away. I think that what we need here is research - I would be astonished if such research was to indicate that hasty tags were either more effective at getting authors to reference their articles, or at keeping those new editors. But if there was a credible peer reviewed study that indicated this then I would be prepared to support policy changes that were guided by that research. I would hope that those who support hasty tagging of goodfaith articles would equally be willing to change their views if research indicated that their view was unfounded. Of course there is a risk that such research could indicate that the picture is mixed, and that hasty tags do result in some extra referencing by some newbies, but at the price of driving other newbies away (or vice versa). I'm hoping that someone out there will see this as a great topic for a PHd thesis.

It might also be possible to get a consensus for a compromise whereby the BLPprod duration was reduced to 7 days, but couldn't be applied until an article was an hour old. However my previous experience of suggesting compromises is that almost everyone will try to unpick them and agree with one element and not the other. So whilst I would support such a compromise I'm not going to start an RFC on that basis. ϢereSpielChequers 13:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I was going to say, an RfC at this point will create more heat than light. I like the idea of doing research and getting some real data. Gigs (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Keith Law (singer and songwriter)

Can we use a blpprod on an article like above which is solely sourced to MySpace or are they enough? Mo ainm~Talk 12:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

After the initial revision of the article, I would say yes, blpprod it. In it's current state where there's more references but it's still poorly sourced (most of the added sources suck still), I'd use AfD or regular Prod. Gigs (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to think that limited notability is asserted so would probably pass an AfD. Mo ainm~Talk 20:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Do read the rest of this page above. I think you'll find that current consensus is that any link anywhere on the page that links to a mention of the subject disallows the use of the BLPPROD. If a page is just poorly sourced and does not meet notability critera, then a normal PROD is probably the best solution.--Kudpung (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

In the last RFC on BLPprods I tried to get agreement to disregard Myspace along with Facebook, Utube and LinkedIn. Most people agreed, but we couldn't quite get consensus, however it might be worth reopening the subject in a month or two when the gap since the last RFC has reached three months. As for Mr Law, I suggest you have a look for some better sources for him. If there are reliable sources out there then the problem is solved one way - if you can't find any then prod or AFD would be unlikely to be contentious. ϢereSpielChequers 23:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

IMDB as the lone source on a biographical article

If the only source (or external link) provided in a biographical article, is this sufficient to make PRODBLP inappropriate?--RadioFan (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say yes myself. We are better off leaving BLPPROD as a yes/no question only. If there are no other reliable sources available, I'd regular PROD or AfD it. Resolute 02:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Mind you, you can normal-PROD it for cause, A7 it if appropriate, or just AfD it. There are more tools to deal with lame BLPs than just BLPPROD. Jclemens (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I was about to ask that very same question here myself. My opinion is that since IMDB does some fact-checking before accepting a submission (whether that fact-checking is thorough is another matter), it shows that they don't accept material solely on the grounds that it had been submitted, and therefore IMDB should be considered more reliable than, say, Blogspot. IMO IMDB is sufficient to pass BLPPROD, but not to pass WP:NFILM. Out of three BLPPRODs I've contested on the grounds that IMDB is used as a source, I've submitted two to another deletion process, and sourced the third one. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, PRODBLP is for absolute lack of sources, not just lack of good sources. Normal prod or afd takes care of those that don't have good enough sources for notability. But BLPPROD is only for zero sources. -DJSasso (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a drastic change in policy; at the moment it asks for at least one reliable source. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

One reliable source to remove a BLPprod, one link that mentions the subject to prevent a BLPprod in the first place. In the last RFC I suggested that we broaden BLPprod to include articles where the only link was to MySpace, Facebook, Utube or linkedin, but that didn't quite get consensus. If the only source is IMDB then I'd suggest tagging it with {{BLP IMDB-only refimprove}} that way when we can get consensus on an appropriate message explaining why IMDB is contentious as a source and when it can and can't be used, we can message the authors explaining why IMDB is a problem. ϢereSpielChequers 11:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The quality of the source doesn't change if its there before or after someone tags it, its either good or it isn't. The whole spirit of the BLP process that was that it would be a black and white test, that it either has a source or it doesn't. There wasn't supposed to be varying degrees on if it was met or not, we were supposed to be making it ridiculously simple for people to know if it is good enough or not. The idea was supposed to be that its either sourced or its not. And IMDB is a source, however it is obviously a poor one. -DJSasso (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There are two different brightline tests. Before you add a sticky prod you check if there is any link in the article (including prior to any vandalism), and if that link supports anything about the person then it is not totally unsourced. Removing a valid sticky prod is also a brightline test - Do we now have a reliable source for at least one bit of information about that person? An IMDB link would pass the first brightline test but not the second. I agree that it is messy and can be confusing - but in the recent RFC we failed to get consensus to change. The only non-confusing options that I think have any support are:

1. Scrap the sticky prod process
2. Make both tests the same by requiring a reliable source for all new BLPs

Neither got consensus in the last RFC, and what we have instead is an inelegant compromise that most people find they can live with. ϢereSpielChequers 17:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There are no true brightline tests, here or anywhere else.

For placing a Prod, & requiring some link supporting anything in the article, the question is whether the link is a usable one. For example, I do not consider a facebook page good evidence even of mere existence, and certainly not for any particular statement given there. (I'm very cautious about deleting these, but I have no hesitation at all deleting a BLP PROD that is supported only by facebook if I can find nothing else. As another example, Amazon is enough to support that a book has been published--though the assertion of an ISBN is not. Inclusion of a name on a list without any information is not enough, for it might or might not be the same person. As another, I think the source has to support something in the article that is at least conceivably related to possible notability, & this isn't always obvious. If an article says that someone is a college graduate somewhere & has written a published book, a list of the college graduates there without evidence of the book will not defeat BLP prod.

For the variant for removing a prod that requires a RS, this is because there is no brightline test for what is a RS. (and we're always here talking about a RS to support merely WP:V, not the considerably greater standard of being a RS to support WP:N, or the much higher standard of being a RS to support negative BLP. There is no totally reliable S, and no totally un-reliable S. Every source has errors, and it is not always obvious where we should draw the line. For the middle 50% of sources, I'm prepared to make an argument for any source for either why we should or should not consider it. Take the not-very reliable source of a paid obit in a local paper--even it is almost always reliable for when the person died and where the funeral took place and generally for the names of the survivors--and, in our context, quite reliable enough to show something is not a BLP. How do we decide what counts? Human judgement, considered in context. What's the final decisive factor here? Consensus.

As an admin working with these, I would find it much better to prod in the ordinary way for lack of notability rather than BLP prod. Consider the example Igor Sibaldi. I could certainly remove the BLP prod, for I checked & can verify the authorship of both books in WorldCat. But a prod that says, not a notable author--yes, I'd certainly delete the article. What should I do as reviewing admin? I can not delete it as BLP prod,for I have a source. What I'd need to do is remove the BLP prod, and place an ordinary prod,which is making more work all around than if the ordinary prod were placed in the first place. There are so many untenable article to be removed, that I hate doing things twice when they can be done once, for then I have only half the time available to actually investigate. (The temptation of course, is to delete it anyway, giving both reasons. That's why I wanted BLP prods to run 7 days , not 10, to make it easier to do that by placing two prods in the first place, just as I give both speedy reasons when both A7 and G11 are applicable. The place to use BLP Prod is when something is claimed that would show notability if true, but you cannot verify it--that is its real purpose here--to remove things that might be OK, but fail verifiability. (Of course, so would an ordinary prod, saying just the same). DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not an intuitive area for doubtful actor articles. I just had to undo myself on Jack Edwards (Tracy Beaker) after reading this talk page for interpretation. Previously PRODded, then converted to BLPPROD but on the basis of a (very weak) IMDB external link (i.e. strictly not a reliable source), I have had to escalate to AfD rather than re-apply the BLPPROD or reverting back to another PROD. Again the guidelines could do with a bit of practical explanation as to best practice. Fæ (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability

Currently the documentation recommends not using this route when you have notability concerns about a subject, but I've seen quite a few that have done this and sometimes done it myself. I rather think it is more respectful to the subject if we tag an article on them as unsourced rather than AFDing it as non-notable. Yes there is a slight chance that the article creator could find a reliable source and then we have a sourced article on someone of marginal notability, but far more likely we just have an uncontentious prod which nobody bothers to project tag or source. Would anyone object if I change the wording to say this is a perfectly acceptable route for articles that assert sufficient importance or significance that an A7 tag would be inappropriate? ϢereSpielChequers 00:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't a regular PROD be better? Considering that you and others are removing BLP PRODs for articles sourced only to personal blogs of the subjects themselves, a regular PROD actually has more chance of working on a non-notable person than a BLP PROD. Gigs (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well if the article is literally unsourced rather than poorly sourced, about a living person not a dead person, and about a real human being not a fictional character or racehorse, then I believe it is rare for a BLPprod to be removed except where someone can be bothered to look for reliable sources and finds them. If the subject is not notable then I doubt that the editors who reference so many of these would bother with it. As for extending BLPprod to poorly sourced new BLPs, I did try in the last RFC to get consensus to extend it to Myspace, Linkedin, Utube and Facebook "sourced" articles, and when we've cleared the backlog I may well revive that suggestion. ϢereSpielChequers 00:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

My point remains that as long as there are significantly different ideas out there about what "unsourced" means, people should probably not use BLP PROD for notability concerns. Gigs (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that someone brought this up. When going through the expired BLPprods I often find them to be poorly sourced or that I can easily find a source and add it. I then remove the BLPprod, but in some cases the article clearly should be sent to AfD or get a traditional prod, then it takes another week before it is eventually deleted. So, I would suggest to folks that if an article could be deleted via traditional prod or AfD, even if sources are added, then those routes should be attempted first. —J04n(talk page) 19:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

My point was about the literally unsourced ones that assert importance and thereby don't qualify for A7, but are not really notable. I think this would be an uncontentious change, going via AFD wastes a lot of editor time as several people will get involved ad I suspect many more will read every AFD. ϢereSpielChequers 00:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs created by overwriting redirects

WP:BLPPROD#Hybrid articles suggests that when a redirect is overwritten to create an unreferenced BLP, the page histories should be split so that the new article can be treated separately. However when I requested a history split for Ryan McKenzie, a redirect from 2007 recently overwritten, at WP:REPAIR this was declined, presumably because the overwrite was not causing any attribution problems.

This section of the policy could do with clarification of how non-admins, who obviously can't follow the steps listed, should deal with these (previously discussed here but no conclusions were reached). January ^(talk) 16:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

As these seem to be quite rare, how about just mentioning them on this page? Ryan McKenzie is now referenced so the point is moot, but I Watchlist this page and am happy to resolve some of these as they arise. ϢereSpielChequers 10:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Backlog of unsourced BLPs that have not been prodded

This report should be empty. Help would be appreciated. Gigs (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it worth manually removing articles that have been dealt with? Botsa satyanarayana is still on the list, though I've moved it to a correctly-capitalized title and added refs throughout. (Guess the bot is detecting that there are still no refs at the original title, which is now a redir page). Gonzonoir (talk) 08:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bot runs weekly in the early hours of Friday morning, so it probably isn't worth manually updating it except maybe on Friday and the weekend to prevent people going over the same ones. If we can get it down below a 100 then it will be worth updating as you go along to avoid tripping over each other and make it easier to identify what's left. It seems to be picking up all articles currently tagged as unreferencedBLP that were created since 18 March last year. I think it is in date order, so the very recent ones at the end will contain some eligible for a BLPprod. But most of them will be in that awkward category of very poorly sourced but with sufficient poor sources to avoid BLPprod. If appropriate changing the tag to {{refimproveBLP}} or {{BLP IMDB-only refimprove}} will see them drop off the next report. Of course if you try and reference them then you will either be able to remove the unreferenced tag or prod them as "unable to find sources". ϢereSpielChequers 10:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I disagree with the requirement that the prodder must look for WP:Reliable sources. I just slogged through page after page of badly written copied material and blogs looking for just that, a reliable source for the BLP I was considering prodding. And it's a BLP of a probably notable person. Just not sourced.

Why is it my job to source a BLP? Last week, I let a couple go simply because I did not want to be bothered to find the reliable source. It might as well not exist, if the burden is on the prodder to source a bad BLP. Part of the purpose of having a burdensome policy for biographies of living people is to not allow people to use wikipedia for slander. The BLP-PROD is supposed to make it easy to take care of problematic articles. If it's source-able, someone can add it back with the sources. But, requiring that anyone wanting to prod the article first source it pretty much leaves the gate wide open for abuse. --Kleopatra (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not. That requirement was added in without consensus. You are "strongly encouraged" to look for reliable sources first but you are not required to. Gigs (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens, please stop restoring that line. It was specifically rejected at the last RfC...Wikipedia:BLPRFC There is no consensus for either relaxing (View by WereSpielChequers, point 1) or strengthening (View by DGG, point 1) WP:BEFORE requirements in the area of biographies of living persons. There was particular resistance (View by Balloonman) to the possibility of establishing requirements to this end. Gigs (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I restored it but once; I hadn't noticed the discussion here. I like the wording there, and don't see it as any more than repeating the existing paragraph, which you don't appear to have an issue with. Obviously, so does Rich Farmbrough. I would not oppose a different wording to the bullet point. Jclemens (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If you put the "strongly encouraged" caveat on it, I guess it would be OK, but as you see above, at least some people viewed that numbered list as requirements, not suggestions. Gigs (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

No rush to put it back tonight; let's give time for others to weigh in. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I created some time ago WP:BEFOREBLPPROD as link here to indicate that the requirements are not - or at least not necessarily - the same as WP:BEFORE. I would also see the bullet list as a technical to do list which should not include another suggestion to search for sources. Rather, I've tried to balance the intro paragraph. Tweaking is welcome but I don't think we should have an introduction that does not take into account that articles are by the very nature of this process being nominated as an alternative to either sourcing oneself or merely tagging as unreferenced BLP. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles created before March 18, 2010

Any particular reason why older articles should be exempt from this process? WP:V does not have a date range for when it is ok for articles to be non-verifiable, and why should a claim that has been unsourced for a long time be in any better standing than a more recent one? (The wording on the template that "All biographies of living people created after March 18, 2010, must have references" seems to imply a contrast with articles created before this date, before which presumably not having references is fine?) Icalanise (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

March 18 was the day the BLPprod was initiated. In early 2010 it was decided that something had to be done about the massive numbers of unsourced BLPs and this was a part of it. At that point there were >40,000 articles that met that description. Rather than deleting all of them it was decided to curb new articles and work on the older ones. Right now there are <12,000 articles remaining. If you want to help cleaning them up you can check out WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons or Unreferenced BLP Rescue. J04n(talk page) 13:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

BLPprod was something of a compromise when it was introduced, the reasons for leaving out the older articles included concerns that if they were included some people might start prodding them without any attempt at sourcing them. ϢereSpielChequers 21:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced BLPs in userspace

Does this policy apply to unsourced biographies of living people in userspace (not user pages, but draft or userfied articles)? If it does not, then I propose that it should.

A few weeks ago, I proposed extending PROD deletion to userspace under very limited circumstances—when the page is abandoned, not useful, and problematic—to facilitate deletion of three particular types of problematic pages in the userspaces of long-since-gone users. The proposal did not gain consensus (in large part, I believe, due to a misunderstanding of its specifics), but it did result in an interesting suggestion: BLP-PROD for unsourced BLPs in userspace (one of the three types of problematic pages).

Unsourced biographies of living people in userspace can, like their equivalents in the mainspace, cause harm to the subjects of articles, and are required to meet the same minimum standards. From Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Non-article space:

The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. The single exception is that users may make any claim they wish about themselves in their user space, so long as they are not engaged in impersonation, and subject to What Wikipedia is not.

So, I propose extending this process to unsourced biographies of living persons in userspace, where the author is not the subject of the biography. Thoughts? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Roughly how many articles would be affected by this? ϢereSpielChequers 00:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure, but I would guess anywhere from a few hundred to several thousand. The sheer number of pages in userspace (more than 1 million) and the fact that they have been and continue to be subject to far less scrutiny than mainspace) leads me to believe that it a not-insignificant number.

There are currently around 17,000 pages in Category:Userspace drafts and its subcategories, of which approximately 10,000 were created after 18 March 2010. Of course, many more userspace drafts are not tagged with {{Userspace draft}} and, thus, do not appear in the category tree. If biting new users is a concern, there are various steps that could be taken to avoid it, such as requiring an initial notification before tagging or imposing a minimum waiting period of, say, 3 months (after the draft is created) before a userspace draft can be tagged for deletion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I say go for it. Userspace is a massive liability. Gigs (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this is the best next step to make, I'd rather broaden sticky prod to Myspace "sourced" new BLPs next, but if we did decide to do this we need some sort of throttle such as only newly created ones otherwise we risk a mass deletion spree. In the meantime anyone who is concerned about this could usefully go on a {{Userspace draft}} tagging spree, tell the authors why you've tagged them, and ask them to consider referencing and mainspacing them or tagging them for deletion. Once we've got a reasonable proportion of these tagged then we can bot message the authors of any that have been in userspace for more than a certain time. Most importantly G10 does apply in userspace and in my experience there are lots of G10 candidates to be found in userspace so anyone who wants to patrol for contentious words in userspace such as convicted or murder and tag the sourced drafts as {{Userspace draft}} and the unsourced drafts as {{G10}} would be doing useful work. ϢereSpielChequers 15:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose MfD is for userspace, PROD is not. If anything problematic comes up in userspace, it should be examined. If it's a true issue, it can be dealt with more rapidly. Jclemens (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • That is the current situation, but there's no reason we could not change it: BLP-PROD (and PROD, too, but that's not at issue here) can apply in any namespace in which we want it to apply. Why should an unsourced BLP in userspace require a full discussion when an unsourced BLP in mainspace does not? What negative consequences do you expect would result if some form of BLPPROD were extended to userspace drafts? Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Simplicity is the essence of PROD. If it's not simple, it might as well go to XfD. Furthermore, if it's in userspace, there is a single editor primarily responsible for it. If there's a question about it and the user's not active, an XfD will add minimal additional overhead. Any editor can add NOINDEX or tag with {{db-g10}} if there are issues warranting that level of response. I do not see any other reason to add another complexity to the PROD process, even if it is BLPPROD. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Maybe so, but how does adding a namespace increase the complexity of the process. It will still be PROD -> wait -> delete. Kevin (talk) 05:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) There would be no added complexity. It's just a matter of adding five words to the "Scope" section: "Although our policy on biographies of living persons covers all types of biographical material, the use of this deletion procedure is intended to apply only to actual biographies of living people (including article drafts in userspace)." (emphasis added) And one advantage of BLPPROD over MfD is that it is simpler, so inactive users who return can, without a deletion review, easily restore and fix a deleted draft. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
        • The only possible compelling argument to not apply blp prod in userspace is the ability to noindex. I don't see that as particularly compelling since it still requires someone to monitor every article to prevent the removal of the noindex tag. If we are monitoring them all to prevent noindex removal, we could monitor them all for libel. I don't think that's workable. Gigs (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
          • I'd rather NOINDEX userspace en masse than mess with procedures that work fine. Kevin, if PROD doesn't work in userspace (it doesn't), then BLPPROD should not either, unless there's a compelling reason to differentiate. Since we have the other tools I've outlined above, it certainly doesn't seem compelling to me. Jclemens (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
            • I'd rather noindex userspace too, I even started an RfC about it a long time ago. Apparently people think keeping them in Google is worth the massive effort it's takes and is going to take to police up to 1 million drafts that are unsuitable for mainspace. Gigs (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
              • I agree that noindexing userspace would reduce the impact of the problem. Though it won't avoid the need to do something about this as I suspect that part of the problem is kids creating pages to forward round the school in cyberbullying attacks, and noindex won't help there. As for prod not working in userspace, does anyone know why the policy is that prod only works in mainspace? ϢereSpielChequers 19:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
                • In my opinion, a limited form of PROD would work just fine in userspace. PROD used to apply to userspace, but the problem was that there were virtually no restrictions regarding when and how a user page could be PRODed. As a result, too many pages which were not actually problematic were tagged for deletion (along with many pages which were problematic) and too many pages were PRODed without a reason (bad practice in any namespace, if you ask me), and PROD in userspace was discontinued; see the archived discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
              • So when was the last RfC on NOINDEX'ing userspace? I'm ready to revisit again, and I suspect the idea may have been gaining traction... Jclemens (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
                • I think my RfC was the last big one. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_page_indexing Gigs (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• I've just done a little userspace trawl for the word murder and deleted 5 pages per G10 - which does apply in userspace. I suggest that anyone who is concerned about this topic try something similar (if you aren't an admin just tag them {{G10}}). The ones I found all looked like goodfaith unsourced negative BLPs, so I use a very non-standard message to the authors and promise to restore if they had a reliable source. So no reason to change policies, as we already have policy to handle the worst stuff out there. ϢereSpielChequers 17:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • That's an interesting approach, and something I'll definitely try. G10 definitely should be used when appropriate, but its scope is limited to pages which are not only unsourced but also "entirely negative in tone". Those are, of course, the most problematic pages, but they probably represent a small percentage of all unsourced BLPs. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I think you're misreading. It's "unsourced+negative" or "attack page"--attack page doesn't require a page be unsourced. When I see a G10, I evaluate it by the spirit of G10, ("Can this cause harm to a living person? Is it one-sided negatively or unsourced?") rather than the letter. Jclemens (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The ones I found were mostly clearly "unsourced+negative" I immediately skipped page when I saw references, historic dates or that it was clearly about a work of fiction. It is possible that I missed some worth deleting, but I wasn't whitelisting anything, just deleting where I considered it to be a G10. Yes that will probably be a tiny minority of the one million userpages, but lets not make the mistake of the whole uBLP saga, the aim is to deal with harmful content, so the 7,000 userpages that contain the word murder are more troubling than the hundreds of thousands that don't. I didn't skim even 1% of them to find the five I deleted so there are probably hundreds more to find, and that is before we look for words like alcoholic, abuse or conviction. ϢereSpielChequers 21:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• The entire purpose of having userified articles is to allow improvement, including sourcing, and we encourage people to start articles there to avoid the unfortunately over-rapid deletion of incomplete articles in mainspace. Extending BLP prod here would prevent people from taking their time in writing BLP articles, and I think working on them carefully before putting in mainspace is something we want to encourage. Obviously, if the article stays there too long (currently usually meaning over one month without actually being worked on) there's mfd, and it usually goes almost as smoothly as a prod in such cases. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Recreations and DB-G4

Hi, is there any consensus for the applicability (or non-applicability) of using {{db-g4}} for recreated articles that have already been deleted once under BLPPROD and for which there are still no reliable sources added? A current example is the recreation of Goran Ercegović Đugum which is up for BLPPROD for a second time within a few weeks. Fæ (talk) 10:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to say that it should apply. G4 is usually only for things that had a discussion. I wouldn't oppose salting if a block couldn't handle it though. Gigs (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I notice that although templates have been placed, there has been no attempt at a full personalized explanation: I think the new editor simply does not understand. I just now added more or less what I usually say in the circumstances--it has almost always worked. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Why so sticky?

I noticed that the policy page doesn't document the usage of the term "sticky PROD", so that information should probably be added. Why is it called that anyway? Guoguo12--Talk--  02:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This was basically a working term that was used during the development of it as a project. Some editors who were involved in he project may still refer to it as such, but it is not an official designation. It 'sticks' , because unlike the standard WP:PROD, it can't be removed until the requirement for a referenced source is met. --Kudpung (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh... thanks. Didn't think of that. Guoguo12--Talk--  21:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a joke somewhere in there, about sticky pages.. -- œ^™ 16:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Double-checking my rules-lawyering on BLPPROD

In terms of placement (not removal) of BLPPROD, it appears that the preexistence of a source that verifies a statement within the biography, whether or not the statement relates to the person at all, precludes placement of a BLPPROD. Is this correct?

The operative text reads:

"biographies created after March 18, 2010, that do not contain at least one source directly supporting the material may also be proposed for deletion under this new process."

So, as an example, if the article contains the statement "apples are green" and a ton of biography, and there's a source backing the apples assertion, that's enough to preclude placing a BLPPROD, yes?

A more pertinent example is a corporate executive with an EL to the home page of the company's web site, that doesn't mention the executive. --joe decker^{talk to me} 17:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

With regards to your apples comment, you are correct. However, I wouldn't count an external link of that sort as enough. The source has to actually be a reference for something, not just be a general "search around on the site and you might find something" kind of thing. NW (Talk) 19:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that WP:COMMONSENSE may be applied. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The compromise on BLPPROD is too quirky, and too contentious for its usage to be entirely common-sense driven, I'm afraid. But yes, the apple example was silly. --joe decker^{talk to me} 01:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The placement/objection confusion

I'm used to it, but I still see editors placing BLPPRODs confused by it, and I found that when asked for a single direct place to point to for declining IMDB-marked BLPPRODs, the text on the policy page here wasn't that helpful.

As such, I'd like to suggest adding the following at the top of the Nomination section as a separate paragraph, for easy contrast with the similar sentence in the Objection section.

To place a BLPPROD tag, this process requires that the article contain no sources (references, external links, etc., reliable or no), which support any statements made about the person in the biography. Note that this is a different criteria than is used for sources added after the placement of the tag.

I make this suggestion so that I will have a more direct place to point folks at when I explain the somewhat quirky consensus that is BLPPROD, but other suggestions welcome, of course. And help me clean up the wording? --joe decker^{talk to me} 01:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As the person who had to ask Joe about this, I would support this addition, to make it more understandable for people like me who were not involved in the creation of BLPPROD. The only suggestion I would have is possibly mentioning that the source(s) needed to prevent a BLPPROD tag do not actually have to be reliable source(s). That's because even when I read the above, when I see source, I automatically think reliable source. That may just be me though :) Jenks24 (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, added a clause up above, but feel free to propose a rewording, I'm finding my own wording a bit awkward here. --joe decker^{talk to me} 01:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps:

To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources, whether reliable or not, and in any form (references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography. Please note that this is a different criteria than is used for sources added after the placement of the tag.

But I'm not sure if that's actually any better. Jenks24 (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Your version flows a bit better than mine. --joe decker^{talk to me} 05:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess this is fine. I still think the root cause of this problem is that we have two different criteria in the first place, and I still reject the idea that there was consensus to create such convoluted rules. It was kind of a "consensus by omission" that two different discussions lead to the two different standards, with neither discussion particularly realizing that they were creating a double standard. Gigs (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I completely agree with you, Gigs, that having two criteria isn't optimal, and I also agree that it was a mess of a discussion. I've been assuming that reopening the policy question is premature--I'm hoping, people would be less frightened of a mild widening of the placement criteria when there isn't a URBLP backlog, but I admit that I could be fooling myself, my reluctance to reopen that might be a matter of my not wanting to be the one to bell the cat.  ;-) --joe decker^{talk to me} 15:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for eyes on wording change of nomination section

In the previous section I proposed, but didn't really call attention to an addition to the BLPPROD nomination wording. I'm a little hesitant to write it into the policy page without a few other eyeballs. Bueller, anyone, Bueller? --joe decker^{talk to me} 02:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Relationship with other policies and processes

As highlighted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalle Närhi and as has occurred in others, This section should contain a reference to AfD as well as speedy tags. Policy states "...the BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article." and simply adding an AfD tag does not fix the issue. Generally speaking it is highly unlikely an article would survive AfD without a source being added, but it could happen. Part 1 of Wikipedia:BLPPROD#Relationship_with_other_policies_and_processes states: "the proposed deletion tag should be left in place in case the speedy deletion is rejected", the same should apply to AfD tags "in case the AfD is unsuccessful". --ClubOranje^T 07:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This would open the possibility of the same article having speedies, a BLPPROD and an AFD running at the same time in parallel with policy ensuring that none of them could be trimmed off as irrelevant. The scenario of an AFD reaching a consensus to keep whilst still being a BLPPROD failure is not just unlikely, it is ridiculous and policy should reflect some common sense rather than catering for the impossible. In such a scenario either the AFD process was not followed (such as being closed too early) and the solution is to move to DRV or there are good reasons to keep that would supersede any rationale for BLPPROD. Fæ (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Am I correct that BLPPROD does not apply to bands?

On a few occasions, I've noticed BLPPRODs on articles about bands (current examples include The Militants and Mike Ficco & The Long Island Jazz Orchestra). My reading of the "scope" section makes me believe that BLPPROD doesn't apply to bands (even if the band members are all living people), as a band isn't a person and thus articles on bands aren't "actual biographies". In the past I've removed BLPPRODs from one or two band articles, but I wanted to make sure that I'm interpreting the policy correctly before removing more BLPPRODs from such articles. Calathan (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. The BLP policy applies to information about living people regardless of whether it is a biography or not, but the BLPprod deletion process is only for Biographies of Living People that are actually Biographies of Living People, not bands, football teams, fictional characters, horses etc etc. ϢereSpielChequers 21:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

A slight wrinkle would be articles such as rappers and DJs where no real name may be given and there are some cases where an artist under a pseudonym might turn out to be more than one person (more often for authors). My intuition is that we act on what the article appears to be rather than what it might be, hence if the article appears to be about a particular person then BLPPROD applies and if later edits reveal the person is entirely fictional or a group then we would remove and consider if other processes apply (such as PROD or speedies). Fæ (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There is another hitch when there is a biography about two people, such as a husband and wife. As with all things, we probably shouldn't try to legislate all these corner cases but just play it by ear. Gigs (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Bingo. That's what IAR and discussion pages are for. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation everyone. Calathan (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Article has been AFDd before

I know that once an article has been to WP:AFD, then whatever the outcome, it cannot be WP:PRODded. But can it be WP:STICKY prodded? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Is a totally unsourced biography of a living person going to survive AfD? Fences&Windows 23:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, why is this a big deal? Sticky prods take longer--send it back to AfD or G4 it (as appropriate) and it will be gone a lot sooner than via this method. Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make it a big deal. I just think that this is an area which could be covered on the WP:STICKY page in similar fashion to WP:PROD#Nominating.

In this case, the AFD was for a previous version of the article, and it closed as delete; but the article was later recreated, and at the time of recreation was "not substantially identical to the deleted version". It's the recreated article which was sticky PRODded. As it happens, there were sources, but most of them were the subject's own website or her Twitter posts.

But it no longer matters, because the sticky PROD has been removed by somebody else, and nobody seems to have complained. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree that if an article was deleted per AFD then that shouldn't preclude a somewhat different article being sticky prodded. Even if it was on the same subject, and especially if its claims to notability related to events after the AFD. ϢereSpielChequers 17:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Quarterly update

It would be helpful if, sometime in the first week of July, someone would add the changes to this page from April 1 to July 1 to WP:Update/1/Deletion policy changes, 2011, which is transcluded at WP:Update. - Dank (push to talk) 20:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Milestone

As of today, every article which was tagged "unsourced BLP" before March 18, 2010 (the mark of the BLPPROD era) has now been sourced, deleted, or is currently PROD'd or the subject of a current deletion discussion. The vast majority of the fifty thousand articles involved had one or more sources added to them.

While we've discovered more articles, created before that date but not tagged as of that date since, I still think this is quite a milestone. Congratulations to everyone who has helped us reach that, we are still, slowly but surely, closing in on the day where there isn't a backlog of unreferenced BLPs at all. --joe decker^{talk to me} 17:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Woot. Hobit (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Re-prodding a recreated article

I just ran across an expired BLP prod that I had deleted previously, also from a BLP prod. If this were a regular prod, I would send it to AFD, since re-creating the article can be seen as an "objection" to the original prod. But I'm not sure if there is a standard for that with the "sticky" prods, since sources are required rather than just an objection. Thoughts? I looked in the talk archives, but didn't find a previous discussion on this detail. --RL0919 (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd go with AfD: It's faster than a re-BLP prod, doesn't raise any semantic re-PRODding complaints, and still will result in the offending article being fixed or deleted in short order. All of this assumes G10-12 don't apply, of course. Jclemens (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent wording

The template for {{Prod blp/dated}} states the following: "Once the article has at least one reliable source, you may remove this tag. Please do not remove this tag unless the article has at least one such source." However, in Wikipedia:BLPPROD#Nominating, the instructions indicate, "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources, whether reliable or not, and in any form (references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography."

So which is it? Is a non-reliable source sufficient to avoid the tag? ... discospinster _talk 15:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Placing the tag requires a full lack of sourcing. The cure is not to add a non-RS source, for obvious reasons. By requiring a RS source to remove the tag, the aim is to improve the article, not just have someone add, for example, a blog entry mentioning the person. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a regular question which keeps cropping up over and over again. The wording of the template is correct and unambiguous. However, because the criteria differ for 1) the lack of sources, and 2) the kind of sources to be added, it it often misinterpreted as an error in the template text. Because WP:NPP is largely a broken and dysfunctional process, we need to evaluate the use of the BLPPROD over the lsst 18 months or so and work on this more, instead of simply holding a perennial discussion on this talk page that just gets archived now and again. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, an unreliable source is sufficient to dodge the tag, but anyone who disputes what the unreliable source is supporting can remove the allegation. I'll go fix the instructions again. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, so I've fixed the contradictions and eliminated references to reliable sources. For those coming late to the game, here's why: Unreliable sources include self-published sources like the BLP subject's own website. It's entirely possible to put together a true and relatively well sourced article using only unreliable sources. In any case, if an article is truly harmful, it should be deleted as G10, and no controversial non-reliably-sourced statement should be allowed to languish for up to 10 days: such should be removed IMMEDIATELY by any editor. BLPPROD is a process only for when no textual problems are evident, and the reliability of sourcing really doesn't affect that at all. It is too slow and too circumventable for damage control; it's just a process to grossly filter out entirely unsourced BLPs. Jclemens (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I won't revert you, since the what I had written there isn't particularly perfect IMHO either, but I believe you are overriding something that was specifically discussed during the original creation of this tag. I suggest that a broader consensus to make the change would be warranted. Note: It is possible that my memory is in error on this point, however.

In particular, if your change stays on the project page for 48 hours, I'll start working to the new proposed rule. --joe decker^{talk to me} 03:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted Jclemens edits which would utterly undermine this process. The point is that the "sticky prod" can only be removed by the insertion of a valid source. If someone de-prods with no source given, they ought to be reverted and gently troutslapped. You do not need to go to AFD as Jclemens suggests - that's the whole point. Sure, if there's a dispute as to whether the source is valid or not, further discussion is needed. But if someone simply removes the prod, without addressing sourcing, replace it.--Scott Mac 21:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You've reverted two separate changes:

1) a simplifying of the process, such that a legitimately contested BLPPROD goes to AfD. I think that's an improvement, but I can live without it.

2) The more important one, that sources need not be RS to avoid the process. I can live with "source", "appropriate source for a BLP", but "reliable source" is unnecessarily narrow, in that it excludes SELFPUB material, which is perfectly acceptable sourcing to meet V (though not N, obviously) on a BLP. No BLP article which has a SELFPUB or better source should be eligible for BLPPROD. Jclemens (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, an article should have a reliable source for the prod to be removed, and we should reapply the prod tag when it is removed with the addition of blatantly unreliable sources. But some lenience should be applied if a source's reliability is in question; then perhaps AfD would be the way to go. ThemFromSpace 00:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this debate is largely about nuance. 1) A legitimately contested BLP prod doesn't need to go to AFD. A BLP prod is about sourcing - the ONLY legitimate way to contest it is either to source it, or to contend that the existing sourcing is in fact adequate. Any other grounds of contest is irrelevant - the article may well be notable, and source-able. But BLPprod means only that it is not currently sourced. If that is legitimately contested, the process simply ends. If there are other reasons to delete it, then a regular prod or AFD is engaged as a separate process. 2) I think we need a certain vagueness between saying "any source counts" and "only reliable sources count". If the source is obviously shitty, then the technicality that it has a source shouldn't mean we de-prod or don't prod. That doesn't serve the encyclopedia at all. On the other hand, if there's a reasonable dispute about whether something is reliable, then BLPprod should not be used, or can be validly removed. At that point the discussion needs to continue in other ways. The principle that "BLPprod can't judge between sources" is roughly right; however, we don't want an iron-clad "anysource will do" rule that means brains are put aside and a sole myspace source is used to game the system.--Scott Mac 09:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Regardless of what is decided, I think it's high time that we harmonize the addition and removal criteria so that they are the same. It is an extremely confusing detail that the two criteria are different. I was involved with the development of BLP PROD from the very beginning, and even I didn't realize we had created a double standard until months after the fact. It's a situation we need to come to consensus on, because it's frankly absurd. Gigs (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Strong agreement with Gigs' comment here. (While I personally think that there's no reason to allow, say, entertainer BLPs which are "saved" only by virtue of self-published MySpace, Facebook, etc. sources, it is probably best to take that discussion to a level where we can get a clean consensus that will stick, that can easily be explained to users, and that can easily be explained to patrollers, and move along.) --joe decker^{talk to me} 20:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there an actual problem that needs fixing, as opposed to a tidiness desire to harmonise? The problem is that you will not be able to write an adequate description that will define to everyone's satisfaction. The only way you can write it tidily will be to say "any source whatsoever counts here". However, that's an incredibly bad tidiness, since there will be many places where applying that will be nonsensical - and "sources" that are obviously and uncontroversially garbage will be used by "its the rules" pushers to defeat the spirit of it. Vagueness is perhaps in the best interests here - we can't define bogus, but we often know it when we see it. An obviously garbage source doesn't count, but if there's any reasonable and good faith contention that a source is valid in a specific instance, then it does count (even if you disagree). I don't think it can be put better than that.--Scott Mac 21:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there's an actual problem that it's difficult to explain the policy to people unfamiliar with it, and unless someone is very sharp, they aren't going to get the distinction by simply reading the policy. Vagueness is actually fine with me, as long as it's the same vague standard for addition and removal. It's the differing standards that are the problem. Gigs (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that a reliable source should be needed to both prevent the adding and the removing of the BLPprod. The Facebook type sources should not "count" as a source on a new article. While we are on the this topic I believe we are very close to the point where we should drop the limit on the use of this prod to articles created after March 23 2010. Almost all of the backlog is gone, and I'm not suggesting this happen until it's gone, so a 10 day warning on any old ones that are newly found is a resonable request. J04n(talk page) 19:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

While you're absolutely entitled to hold that opinion, how does it support the pillars? Facebook-type sources, official websites, fan pages, etc. are likely to be generally accurate, but more importantly, they are likely to be non-malevolent. If someone starts an attack page BLP, it gets nuked, as it should; if it's unsourced, it gets sticky-prodded, as it should. If it's sourced to a benign SELFPUB page... it should be deleted without a discussion? Really? See, that's exactly the sort of thing I think an AfD is the best process to handle. A Facebook-sourced BLP may well be deleted on speedy attack grounds, or AfD notability grounds, but I just don't see any harm being prevented by saying a benignly yet unreliably sourced article MUST remain in the BLP PROD process. Jclemens (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been sending these pages to AfD since this whole thing exploded over a year-and-a-half ago and believe me there is very little discussion. They routinely get relisted once or twice before they inevitably get deleted. If they are traditionally prodded the prod gets removed by the creator, so let them have the sticky prod for 10 days. Anyone can monitor [articles] just as well as those sent to AfD, and from Wikipedia's first pillar: "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia...Wikipedia is not...an advertising platform, a vanity press..." These pages are exactly advertising and/or vanity articles. J04n(talk page) 01:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been considering setting up a matrix of "what to do when" covering the various scenarios of referencing. Of course at first it will be just my opinion, but in time it may give us something concrete (if we can gain consensus) to use as a guide. In reply to Jclemens, BLPPROD was intended to stop the flood of unreferenced BLPs, which are in violation of many of the policies and guidelines. It was meant to be a simple, non-judgement call to get rid of the articles that make a claim of notability (so avoid CSD-A7, aren't blatant hoaxes (CSD-G3) but without the rigorous review of AfD, nor the "I'll simply remove it" idea of PROD. The reality is that there has been found a big grey area of "possibly unreliable sources" that no-one really knows how to cope with them.

Personally, I'd like to list out a set of "completely unmoderated self-published" refs, such as a personal website, twitter, myspace or facebook page, that are to be considered as "unreferenced" but allow a list of "possibly reliable refs" such as university faculty pages, promitional TV show websites, IMDB, sporting list/database sites etc that should be marked with other tags, generally {{BLP sources}} but maybe also {{primary sources}} or other speciality tags.

But at the end of the day, it isn't a huge problem. There are currently less than 200 articles that are marked as unreferenced BLPs that were created after the cutoff date and about 800 (until User:SunCreator tagged another 100 today!) in total, if we ignore the 18 March date. So all up, BLPPROD is doing it's job. I don't know if there are many more "unmarked" unreferenced BLPs that the various bot runs haven't found yet, but this might all be a bit of a moot point. Within 3 weeks those 800 known UBLPs will be cleared and from then on maintaining control over the 100 or so new articles in various deletion processes won't be that onerous. The-Pope (talk) 04:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Having a policy with two different sourcing standards is not ideal, both because of the number of people who get it wrong and the number of times it gets reraised here. Our Strategy as a community is to try and become more open by among other things simplifying over complex policies, and this is one policy I'd like to see simplified. However there are difficulties which have so far proved insuperable. A BLP sourced from the subject's page on a University website or a major record label is not reliably sourced, but a policy that allowed such to be tagged for deletion rather than improvement would be counterproductive and would risk bringing the project into disrepute; Especially if we tried to justify it on the grounds of trying to protect the subject. I've tried several times to get consensus to change the policy at least to the extent of ignoring four specific sites that contain unvetted self published content,to whit: youtube, Myspace, Linkedin and Facebook. But maybe now is the time to take a different tack, accept we are no more likely to get consensus to shift one test than we are to get consensus to shift the other, and add a hatnote to this page at least alerting participants to the fact that this is well travelled ground. ϢereSpielChequers 07:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The solution, perhaps, is to remember that a BLP prod is a "proposed deletion" and not a speedy deletion notice - and to allow that there are two possible (but related) reasons for prodding: (1) The article contains no sources whatsoever (2) The article contains only sources which the prodder considers patently unreliable. If the reason is (1), then the prod "sticks" and may only be removed by the addition of reasonable source. If the reasons is (2), then it is quite reasonable for any person who believes that the source does in fact offer verification for the core of the article to remove the prod. However, people shouldn't remove it "just because there is in fact a source", but only when they are contending that the source is reasonable verification. That means anything sourced from facebook, myspace etc can be "sticky prodded" and will usually die unless sourced. What we need to stress is "this is notable" isn't a reason to deprod. Because notability isn't what the BLPprod concerns. One can only deprod if the article has at least one source, and in the eyes of the deprodder that source is reasonable. If an article is deprodded which does have a source, but someone contends that it is inadequate, then that person should attempt to source and verify the article, and if they can't they should AFD as "unverifiable".--Scott Mac 19:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with a solution that would mean that sticky prods were sometimes sticky and sometimes not. If an article is poorly sourced and you can't find a better source then prod and AFD are already available. I think the current system already covers the argument that this is notable isn't a reason to remove a sticky prod. My experience is that apart from newbies the people removing BLPprods are not doing so simply because the subject is notable. Is your concern about "this is notable" removal of BLPprods theoretical or have you come across examples of this recently? ϢereSpielChequers 13:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

(comment moved to the RFC below) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Combine tags

New idea Combining a few comments from above, and something from leftfield... how about merging {{BLPPROD}} with {{BLP unreferenced}}. If we agree to remove the March 18 2010 cutoff (which (as far as I can recall) was mainly put in place to avoid "flooding" the PROD system with old UBLPs), and agree that unreferenced really means unreferenced then why complicate things by having separate BLP deletion and BLP unreferenced tags? I think this will simplify things immensely.

Living person. Unreferenced. Single tag. Ref or delete. Simple.

Hopefully the {{BLP unreliable sources}} tag will be accepted for the "not-independent/not-reliable" sourced articles and being new, hopefully it can remain under control and not balloon out to thousands of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Pope (talk • contribs)

In theory we should be able to get the two to overlap, and I'd like to think there are no undiscovered stacks of unreferenced BLPs lurking in the pedia. But from the way various people have been able to find hundreds and sometimes thousands of unreferenced articles and retag them as BLPs I would be loathe to merge those tags now. If we did and we had another bot run we could have a bot tagging of a thousand articles for deletion - which is precisely the scenario that some people have struggled for nearly two years to avoid. Also I'm not sure that everyone who is comfortable adding maintenance categories is going to be comfortable finding that when they thought they were adding a maintenance tag they proposed something for deletion. ϢereSpielChequers 14:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

How about doing it progressively, by pushing back the creation date used for the PROD template? The current BLPPROD cutoff is articles created after March 18, 2010. Why not set up progressively further-back dates, so that the process isn't completely flooded all at once, but we'll eventually get to a point where we can unify {{BLPPROD}} and {{BLP unreferenced}}? We could move the cutoff back in yearlong or six-month increments, so that the template would be usable on articles created after March, 2009, then when that trickles off, March, 2008, then when that trickles off, March, 2007...etc, until the flow of new taggings is stemmed and we can unify the templates. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If we were to move the date, then switching it to Jan 1 would make the most sense - but there aren't that many old ones out there. There are only 150 already tagged UBLPs that aren't already in a deletion process, and only 100 articles listed as living people and unreferenced (ie not BLP unreferenced). So unless we somehow discover an untapped trove of old unreferenced biographies the issue going forward is new articles, not old ones. The-Pope (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Undiscovered troves are precisely my concern. In the past we've had bot runs that have suddenly given us thousands of articles by looking at the combination of the unreferenced tag and the living people category. Without doing a random search through the pedia we have no way of knowing how many more old articles that merit a uBLP tag are out there just waiting for someone to either add the tag or the category. I'm pretty sure there are also a few new ones that are getting past the patrollers, I've removed AutoPatrolled from three editors who I found creating unreferenced BLPs, but I fear there will be more out there. Unless we can find another way to throttle the number of BLPprods so that those who review and rescue many of them don't occasionally get swamped then I'm loathe to see the tags combined. Remember the effect of combining the tags would be to open a number of other articles up to sticky prods, if there aren't many to find then we don't really need to do this and if there are a lot to find then this is the wrong way to treat them. ϢereSpielChequers 19:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Pity I can't think of a clever way of throttling it otherwise, it's a fair concern. I don't suppose the community would grant me a bag limit of a half dozen a day from any older stock.  ;-) Thought not. Anyway, the main effect of the current situation for me is that I end up sourcing a handful more articles a day that I can't BLPPROD, e.g., [2], not that big a deal. --joe decker^{talk to me} 23:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is a major trove of unsourced BLP submissions in AfC space, but there doesn't not appear to be a consensus to delete them yet. But I guess you are talking about articles in the main space. Monty₈₄₅ 17:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Why, given the distribution in "problem" articles as noted above? A better effort would be to go tackle the {{BLP refimprove}} list... Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Does BLPPROD apply to people born less than 115 years ago even if the article says they are dead?

According to WP:BDP, the main WP:BLP policy applies to articles on people who were born less than 115 years ago where there is not a reliable source stating that the person is dead. I know that WP:BLP applies to many pages that are not eligible for BLPPROD (such as non-biographies and non-article pages), so I wasn't sure if the statement about people born less than 115 years ago would apply to BLPPROD or not. Is an unsourced biographical article that clearly states the subject is dead eligible for deletion under BLPPROD? An example of such an article that currently has a BLPPROD tag on it is Hideo Oguma. Calathan (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Good question, not sure if there is an agreed upon answer. But here, the article had an offline source listed from the get go and claimed he was dead, so I wouldn't have applied BLP-PROD to it. Frankly, a picture of the guy's gravestone is usually going to be enough for me as well even if not everyone likes findagrave.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• I would say no, it does not apply if there is a sourced given that says the person is dead. That being said, in this specific case, is there any good reason why that is not a Speedy A7 candidate? Source 1 argues that this was a notable poet, but that article utterly fails to assert notability. Resolute 22:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly if there is a source given that says the person is dead, then the article isn't eligible for BLPPROD. If there is a source given that says anything at all about the person, then the article isn't eligible for BLPPROD. I'm wondering about when there is no sources and the article says the person is dead. Calathan (talk) 03:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Calathan, good question. I pointed this out to Jimbo many moons ago. The way around BLP policy is simply to say the person is dead. If I recall correctly the reply was that BLP articles where not being edited to show they where dead in practice. So do you have an example? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen or heard of a case where someone changed a BLP to say the person was dead in order to get around BLPPROD. In the example I gave above, the article already said that the person was dead before the BLPPROD tag was added. I wouldn't anticipate there being many unsourced biographies that incorrectly state that the subject is dead. However, even if the person really is dead, if there isn't a source stating the person is dead then the BLP policy says to treat the person as alive (if the person was born less than 115 years ago). I've seen articles that clearly stated a person was dead, but which were in the "living people" category because there wasn't a source saying that they were dead. My personal opinion is that if the article says the person is dead, it is probably correct, and BLPPROD shouldn't be used on the article. However, that doesn't seem consistent with how the BLP policy says to treat people as alive until a reliable source is found that says they are dead. Calathan (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed a BLPPROD on the grounds that the subject died after the BLPPROD was added (a coincidence I hope!), but I also sourced the page. Fences&Windows 18:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

This could be quite a sizeable group of articles about people, many of whom are dead. The vast majority of people who would now be 85 to 115 are dead. It would be very wrong, in fact many would perceive it as vandalism, if we were to tag as "living " articles about people where the article says they are dead. If we were starting out afresh then a contemporary people policy that prioritised events about real people from the last fifty years might have a slightly better fit with vandal prone articles. But unless vandals shift their focus, BLP is too ingrained in our processes for such a change.

It would be great to have extra help at death anomalies and potentially it could be expanded to a broader project about the recently deceased. But I don't see the case for a new type of sticky prod "born in the last hundred years or active in the last fifty and totally lacking sources", as in my experience problems have not increased in that area and vandalism is rare. Deletion is an ugly unpleasant process and should only be done on goodfaith articles where better tools have failed.

If we were going to create a new sticky prod I would prefer that we did so for new articles on commercial products and organisations, not that these are so high risk ethically, though they can be litigious. Spam has been steadily increasing as a proportion of total edits, (I suspect in line with readership). So we need better tools to deal with it. A BizProd for New articles on Commercial products and organisations that lack an independent third party source would be helpful in dealing with subtle spam where the PR people have learned to write in a neutral wikipedia style, but just leave out the negatives. So BizProd could be a useful repeat of the BLPprod model. ϢereSpielChequers 07:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm very warm to that idea WSC. I felt I have been the only patroller/admin who has been tagging/deleting those subtle, neutral spam and SEO articles. But a sticky BIZPROD would need a shorter fuse - perhaps only 3 days. The main problem is that the SEO experts know that Google indexes Wkipedia pages in seconds, and that's all the SEO spammers need for increasing the ranking of their clients' websites. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

We currently have 7 day prods and AFDs and 10 day BLPprods. 3 days would be an added complication to the process, I did think of suggesting that BizProds be 7 days but that would mean two different time periods for the two types of sticky prod. However I don't see this as slowing down many deletions, occasionally you'll get a biz article where someone adds a reliable source to confirm their existence and we then have an AFD to delete them as unnotable, but unless the reference is added towards the end of the ten days it won't greatly extend the process. Remember these would be articles that don't currently quite qualify either for A7 or G11, and I suspect people will trawl the category for ones that can be speedy deleted. I'd also like to see BLPprod reduced to 7 days, and the software changed so we can put NoIndex in mainspace, and have all unpatrolled new articles start as NoIndex. But I think we should treat those as parallel proposals to the BizProd concept. ϢereSpielChequers 08:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Nominating articles with unreliable sources for BLPPROD

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is that only articles including no sources are eligible for BLPPROD, to keep the process as black-and-white as possible. There is no consensus for any other change. lifebaka++ 22:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

---

There is a dispute over whether articles that contain only sources that fail WP:RS are eligible to tagged under the WP:BLPPROD rules. The policy page as gone back and forth a few times, staying at times for a month or more with each rule. It is extremely problematic when a policy such as this is having its scope repeatedly expanded and retracted without a proper discussion. Monty₈₄₅ 04:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

BLPPROD should only apply if there are no sources at all

• I support the version created by Joe Decker in march, which requires that to nominate an article under the BLPPROD policy, the article must have no sources at all. It is clear, and avoids any need to analyze whether sources are reliable, analysis that is more suitable to a deletion discussion rather then a sticky prod. Further, most articles that are deleted with BLPPRODs have no sources. The few that contain only arguably unreliable sources can be adequately handled by the regular deletion channels. Monty₈₄₅ 04:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

  Note I left messages at the talk pages of the 4 editors who have modified the rule notifying them of this discussion. (Conveniently, 2 on each side) Monty₈₄₅ 04:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

  Note2 Due to a technical failure of the RFC bot, this RFC as still not been listed at either of the RFC pages that the RFC tag requested. My efforts to have it listed have so far been fruitless. I added notifications to WP:VPP and WP:AN as a substitute. Monty₈₄₅ 00:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. If it has a source, take it to Prod or AFD, period. BLPprod is for when there are no sources. Resolute 04:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support this process for being for no-source articles. Evaluation of "is this source reliable enough?" is too nuanced for anything but AfD. The alternative makes SPS (which are acceptable for BLPs in many familiar circumstances, e.g. official website links, but not reliable as such) irrelevant, which may be a fine thing from a notability standpoint, but is completely orthogonal to the purpose of this process, which is to reduce harm to the subject. Please, explain to me how a marginally notable person is going to be helped by deleting an article on them sourced only to their official website... Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support in general, but.... Actually, while I made the textual change described above (as it was my understanding that that was the previous consensus), I would personally support, and in fact might prefer, two very mild expansions of the nomination criteria. This is not "what I do", but it is what I would prefer.
  1. First, possibly exclude inarguably self-published pages (e.g., their own Twitter, Facebook, MySpace etc. pages) could be ignored for this purpose. Such sources support neither verifiability of significant facts (because of the independence issues) nor notability. However, this change might be too complex, such cases would have to be carefully distinguished from things like, say, the official university web site page of a professor (which could easily be seen as being reliable enough to verify the professorship, etc.) While such a change would not avoid harm to the individual, it would address a fair amount of self-promotional material, which does harm the encyclopedia.
  2. Second, I would also support a removal of the restriction to articles created after March 18, 2010, we have cleared ninety-nine percent of the URBLP backlog, largely through the addition of one or more sources, and will likely get the last bit (to the extent that it's possible to get it) relatively soon. Removing this restriction would make BLPPROD simpler and easier to explain.

These details aside, I do not support wholesale expansion of the nominating criteria, in most cases, even a questionable source should be enough to preclude nomination. And in any case, I support a clear statement of the nominating criteria. --joe decker^{talk to me} 04:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• support only if the {{BLP unsourced}} is defined exactly the same. This may require the creation of a more generic form of the Imdb specific tag, such as {{BLP unreliable sources}}. The-Pope (talk) 05:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support using BLPPROD for BLP articles with no sources at all per Jclemens. However, AfD is for articles that require discussion about the articles and especially about the adequacy of the sources used. A zero source BLP article is straightforward and non-controversial enough that a nominator plus admin two person decision is sufficient. Adding the two exceptions per Joe Decker complicate it unnecessarily, IMO and those should also go to AfD. — Becksguy (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

  Actually, my second point *removes* a clause, not adds one; simplifies rather than complicates. (You're right about the first one, though.) --joe decker^{talk to me} 05:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right. Point taken. — Becksguy (talk) 05:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support BLPPROD maintaining its current scope. Completely unreferenced BLPs are a black-and-white issue, and BLPPROD has done a great job. But I don't think BLPPROD would be a good solution for the relatively grey area of poorly sourced ones. —WFC— 11:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• The current scope works, though "at least one source directly supporting the material" does mean that the source needs to name the subject. I've tried several times to get this broadened to articles solely "sourced" from Facebook, youtube, Myspace and Linked in, but we can't get consensus, and to be honest we can't establish a good reason why those articles are higher risk than other poorly sourced ones containing information about living people. My preference would be that we stabilise here and instead of broadening the scope of BLPprod we target additional maintenance efforts on high risk articles such as those which contain unsourced negative assertions and contentious statements about living people. We already have policy to deal with that sort of stuff, we just need to be better at finding it. I've been testing some tools to identify such articles and have already got one to the point where I could use some collaborators. If any one wants to join me in sorting out far worse stuff than we were sorting out with the uBLP cleanup, just drop me an Email. ϢereSpielChequers 12:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Whatever the policy, amend the {{BLP unsourced}} tag to match the policy. Otherwise confusion will continue on and on, no matter what is decided on this talk page. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• This procedure is designed to protect article subjects from harm, per WP:BLP. It is not intended to enforce guidelines on notability or spam. For the purposes of protection from harm is it perfectly acceptable for sources to be written by subjects themselves, even if those sources do not meet our requirement of reliability. Let's not forget that we still have the options of speedy deletion, WP:PROD and WP:AFD, all of which can get articles deleted more quickly than WP:BLPPROD, and should be used in preference when applicable. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
• oppose. This process is designed to protect article subjects from harm - and if a source is unreliable (say, TMZ, for example) it has the potential to be complete bollocks...causing harm. Ironholds (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

  That sounds like an argument for "Oppose" rather than "Support". Ntsimp (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

  Indeed; this is what happens when I edit tired. Ironholds (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support as determining the reliability of sources requires analysis and discussion. I don't think such articles should be kept, but AFD may be the proper venue as that would allow people the chance to read through the article, check the sources, and then determine that the article needs deletion. The idea behind BLP-PROD is the lack of analysis needed to make the determination; a bot could almost do it; either the article has references or it doesn't. Once it requires real humans to read and interpret those references, then it requires real humans to discuss and arrive at conclusions. Again, this doesn't mean I want to keep articles of bullshit gossip around if all they have are lousy, unreliable sources. However, I think AFD is an adequate process to deal with this issue, and it doesn't require a special PROD to do it. --Jayron32 03:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support it was hard enough to get this proposal agreed to, and if we have scope creep we will have a lack of consensus for the final result. So stick to what was agreed for this process and debate it out in other places whether or not the source is reliable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment In opposition to several folks above who've called for harmonization of BLPPROD with {{BLP unsourced}}, I oppose any change to "BLP unsourced" (not BLPPROD, but the BLP unsourced tag) which would prevent it from being used on articles with purely problematic sources, many editors feel that something like "my facebook page" shouldn't be considered a source at all, and raising a red sourcing flag on such articles is a sensible response and longstanding practice. The proposed change would signficantly interfere with efforts to methodically address sourcing issues in BLPs. Do what you will with BLPPROD, but don't change the current, admittedly inelegant, usage of BLP unsourced. --joe decker^{talk to me} 16:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• I disagree - now - I would have agreed with you a few months ago. Given that we will soon have a (nearly) "blank slate" when it comes to {{BLP unsourced}}, I think that this gives us a great opportunity to redefine BLP unsourced to only be used on completely unsourced articles and to create a new {{BLP unreliable sources}} tag to capture {{BLP IMDb refimprove}} type tags, and maybe create |myspace=yes or |twitter=yes |personal=yes subtags. I see this clarity as a improvement and will concentrate the questionably sourced articles in one place and should leave the BLP unsourced cats only containing BLPPRODed articles (unless we find more old ones).The-Pope (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'd be comfortable with that provided we did create the new tag you suggest. --joe decker^{talk to me} 17:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support whether a source is unreliable or not is often not an easy question to settle and discussions of that type are best suited to fora which allow for discussion to take place. I also agree with WereSpielChequers above that there's no particular reason why these types of articles are much worse than other types which are not subject to BLPPROD. The fact that something could potentially remove information which is harmful to living people doesn't mean must or should introduce it. Hut 8.5 16:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - this post by WereSpielChequers partly addresses the problem, and with all due respect to Bartett's comment, I don't believe this is 'scope creep': Completely unreferenced BLPs may be a black-and-white issue, but BLPPROD is in fact not really doing the great job that was intended by its conception. What appears to be up for confirmation here, is the ambiguity that anyone can slap a worthless EL of any kind, anywhere on the page, remove the BLPPROD tpl, and let the new article slip unnoticed into the vast and murky morass of inappropriate articles that escape proper reviewing - which can indeed happen - while The few that contain only arguably unreliable sources can be adequately handled by the regular deletion channels just create extra work and more backlogs in those channels - not everyone is as dedicated to BLP clean-up as Joe and his team and there's a big difference between {{BLP unsourced}} and {{BLPrefimprove}} tags, and templates such as BLPP ROD, PROD, and AfD that actually warn of a real likelyhood of an impending deletion and galvanise people into action. At a time when the serious deficiencies of WP:NPP are now receiving the dedicated attention and software developments by the WMF, there is a good argument for clearing up the vagaries of the NPPers, and the confusion over what constitutes ...a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article. BLPPROD would still be a black-and-white issue if it were to include a short, but black-and-white catalogue of sources that we know without any doubt to be highly unreliable and inappropriate, and which would be a clear statement of the nominating criteria. On a meta note: To avoid 'consensus creep', considering the huge response and participation at the original BLPPROD RfC, this current RfC should probably best be moved to a more prominent location (stand-alone project page), and given much wider publicity (WP:Cent & VP) in order to attract and allow a representative participation by the community. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• I like the idea of the list of known unreliable or reliable sources. The lists could be combined with a javascript tool to let us know if the web site is known to be good or not. It could even go in the cite template (if used) to make a hidden category of category:unreliable reference. But most sources will probably not be on the lists. And some like IMDB will be controversial. It may be good, but may not be either, so do we count that as reliable enough to avoid BLPPROD? The scenario you describe, unreliable source and remove prod could happen anyway. So perhaps you need an edit filter or bot to detect removal of blpprod tag and addition of only dodgy references. THen more concentrated attention can be brought to bare with and AFD if needed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• I like the idea of an edit filter or bot to detect removal of blpprod tag and addition of only dodgy references. I was forgetting that we have the possibility of tools like these. I think that this discussion needs to take into account the development of the comprehensive new Page Patrolling control panel that is being developed by the WMF, because PRODing is done by patrollers. Let's never lose sight of the fact that much of the problems associated with controlling and tagging new pages, and the identification of what constitute RS, is due to the unfortunate, but massive lack of experience and maturity of a transient army of patrollers who generally refuse to be educated. Let's consider these other facts and options before making this RfC a straight 'yes' or 'no' !vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• In order for a BLPprod to be sticky we do indeed need a process to look at articles where BLPprod was removed. I thought we had something like that, but perhaps it is incomplete and relies on individual prodders keeping tabs on their BLPprods. If we don't have a list of all removed BLPprods with rationale then it would be useful to create one, it shouldn't be beyond bot technology to keep tabs on current BLPprods and add the deprodded to the list. I suspect most deprods are due to referencing, and a fair few are because the article is out of scope (in the case of one Anglo-Saxon king, a thousand years out of scope). It would be a faff to maintain such a list and classify them into Rescued, not a BLP and not totally unsourced when the BLPprod was applied. Doing this would identify the ones where a myspace link was added and the BLPprod removed, but to avoid massive rework you need to be able to just get the ones that others haven't checked as legitimate removal of BLPprod. ϢereSpielChequers 07:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'm rather conscientious of following up on all articles I tag, but where my user prefs are set to watchlist every article I edit (that's why I have 8,000 articles on it), Twinkle doesn't do it for CSD & PRODS, so I never know what happened to the hundreds of BLPPRODS I stuck on new articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Twinkle will these days if you turn on the options for CSD and PROD. Not sure if that includes BLPPRODS, but probably will...--ClubOranje^T 08:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Those options include BLPPROD, see twinkle log entry. Monty₈₄₅ 14:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, my intent when starting this RFC was to reconfirm that the nominating criteria requires there be no sources at all, as reliable was being repeatedly added. I think much of the support above is aimed at the nominating criteria as well. While many of the arguments would also extend to the criteria for removing a BLPPROD, it was not my intent to remove the reliable requirement from the source that must be provided to remove it once the article was properly nominated under the BLPPROD rules, thereby weakening BLPPROD, but instead to stop the scope of BLPPROD from expanding. Monty₈₄₅ 14:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'm good with things as they are (prod only if no sources, remove only if reliable source). We discussed having a list of sources that don't count (facebook, etc.) when this started out. I'm a bit worried about scope creep getting in the back door that way. Not outright opposed, but I'd want a process in place that makes it difficult for the list to grow and grow. Hobit (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think that the fact that included "sources" are patently unreliable needs to count. The introduction to this policy clearly states that only reliable sources count for the tag's removal, and that's the general spirit of the rule that should be applied to the tag's addition as well. That would prevent situations like what I just saw: "Decline BLPPROD: a source, albeit primary and therefore unreliable, was present in the article before the placement. See BLPPROD#Nominating". I appreciate that editor's attention to detail, but those two extra edits were really just a waste of his (and everyone else's) time. Generic external links to self-published websites simply do not count as a solution to WP:BLP issues and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people recognized this in pretty clear terms - there was a clear majority (28 : 16) support for the idea of explicitly disallowing all unreliable sources, even many of those people who disagreed and thought the idea of requiring WP:RS was too vague were pretty much amenable to disallowing self-published sources. Do we need to call another RFC to clarify this point once and for all? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a very valid point and thank you for reminding us of that mini-consensus. In the race to get the BLPPROD up and running, insufficuent attention was paid to it, and there was quite some disappointment voiced later that it had not been done. Although initially the BLPPROD RfC was subscribed by hundreds of participants, Phase 2 of the discussion had less participation, and finally a tiny group of editors was left to fine-tune the wording of templates etc, and decide upon details such as the 10-day period, which I hurriedly set practically unilaterally without any opposition. Those are really the reasons why I had suggested at that time that a full review of the performance of BLPPROD should take place after 12 months of operation. That's now over 18 months ago. You struck your comment about requiring a new RfC, but it can be read, and that's why I suggested in an earlier post here that perhaps this discussion should be more widely publicised. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I struck it because I thought this was an RfC :) I suppose it wouldn't hurt to have another bigger RfC, on a separate page and linked from watchlist headers. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This discussion could be cut and pasted to a new stand-alone page in a more appropriate discussion location, and aired ay the VP and WP:Cent.. The title would have to be changed though because it's totally biased to attract votes/comment from those who support the motion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Agree. BLPPROD exists so we don't get stuck with a growing number of unsourced BLPs and not a growing number of articles of dubious notability (for which there is AfD). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The application of the BLPPROD tag should be strictly limited. Even unreliable sources can provide sufficient indicators of notability to make deletion a dubious choice, and the AFD process is filled with examples of articles on clearly notable subjects salvaged and repaired after full discussions. There might be room to expand its scope slightly, to cases where articles contain no references but only unreliable IMDB-type links, but even that is problematic. Rather than changing the BLPPROD process, it would would be better to restore the original function of the BLP-unsourced tag, which originally applied whenever an article did not actually reference any of its claims, but is now so weak that any article with an external link, even a generic link to an unreliable sourced, is exempt from it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I can support the other proposal only if there was a list of agreed upon common unreliable sources. Sole Soul (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Whenever a source is reliable or not requires discussion Cambalachero (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, but would be willing to support if Joe Decker's caveats are added in. Sources like IMDb aren't exactly the greatest, but it's nuanced enough to require an AfD; Facebook, Youtube channels, and similar unquestionably self-sourced pages aren't helpful for either verifiability or notability. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support because of the vagueness that would be introduced by "reliable" . In practice, most bio AfDs turn on the interpretation of that word. And at AfD it properly means reliable enough to meet the requirements for showing notability according to the GNG--but this is a much stronger criterion that the lesser degree of reliability we require for WP:V, especially for non-controversial facts. As a simple illustration, a person's official website at a reputable organization is sufficient sourcing for the facts of his life, but is not enough to show that anyone outside the university has ever noticed him. For cases of extreme unreliability, in practice my experience is that the article will usually meet the requirements for speedy. Inexperience NPPatrolers often undertag just as they often overtag, and my practice in patrolling BLPPROD is certainly to add a speedy tag the ones that undoubtedly qualify for it (or sometimes in exasperation just speedy it: though in general I think admins shouldn't delete single handed, I take the original prod as a second voice.) DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose No article should ever be kept unless it meets WP:V, which instructs us to base articles on independent, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. While "based" may be a term with a bit of nuance, an article that doesn't reference any at all clearly doesn't meet WP:V. I'd be happy enough to expand CSD to include them, so doing it for one narrow case of BLP doesn't bother me a bit.—Kww(talk) 02:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support Reliability of sources needs to be tested at AfD, and that is also a signal to definitely find better sources if possible. But if the current sources are bad, a normal PROD could be added, and see if someone is watching enough to fix it. Mark Hurd (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Completely worthless sources shouldn't torpedo this process. I don't think it's that hard to judge that a reference is totally unreliable. If someone has a good source it is pretty easy to get the article undeleted: [3]; it isn't the end of the world. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed. I've seen bios where the only source was used to support a trivial detail. I'd support a more nuanced proposal.   Will Beback  talk  19:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. If the reliability of the sources needs discussion, then AfD is the place to discuss. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

BLPPROD should also be applicable when only generic self-published sources are included

Per my comment above and previous discussions, this looks like a decent compromise option (compared to just invoking WP:RS). Slapping an external link to an "official website" or "official facebook page" or whatever other silly self-published source should not be available as a simple excuse to avoid BLPPROD. I could envisage the case where an otherwise unreliable self-published web site also happens to distribute a PDF that summarizes coverage of the person by third parties in a format that can be referenced nicely. However, I've yet to see a single example of that. Instead, all I've seen so far has been, well, fodder. It usually does not require any particular effort to analyze provided sources to determine that they are self-published - if in doubt, use normal PROD, but otherwise allow BLPPROD. Otherwise, we make it easier to keep a bunch of articles only with trivial self-published coverage, which fails to deter any later WP:BLP abuse. Anonymous vandals can't create problematic BLPs, but it's trivial for them to edit and add problematic content into existing practically-unsourced BLPs that passed under the BLPPROD radar just because they had an official website in the external links section. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

- or an inline external link that goes unnoticed by the page patrollers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty of this is that once you start discounting self published sources you risk having people apply BLPprod because an article is only sourced from a Professors bio on their university website. Of course we want better sources than that, and if none can be found it wouldn't be the first time that an article on a professor was deleted by AFD. But BLPprod is supposed to be about protecting real people by making it easier to delete potential badfaith stuff. Deleting a professor's bio because it is only sourced to his page on his university's site takes us a very long way away from protecting real people, in fact some would consider it would make BLPprod part of Wikipedia's problem of deleting articles that people are writing and expecting to be here. Now you might say we should revive my several previous proposals to at least disregard Facebook, Myspace, Youtube and Linked In, but none of those proposals got consensus, partly because we have yet to demonstrate actual harm as opposed to theoretical potential harm from such poorly sourced articles, and partly because some see it as a slippery slope that would lead to taggers saying they thought that was a longwinded way of saying self published sources, and of course there is our outstanding need to simplify policy rather than complicate it. ϢereSpielChequers 17:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, deleting a professor's bio because it is only sourced to his page on his university's site is actually the proper direction according to the spirit and text of WP:BLP. Not only that, it actually expressly forbids that scenario, saying Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through [...] personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: [...] the article is not based primarily on such sources. Certainly we can try to disconnect WP:BLP from WP:BLPPROD in this regard, but it does make sense to connect the two for the same reason you mentioned - to make policy simple. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

And it comes down to an individual's assumptions about what defines a primary source or a personal website. Is a profile/bio on a Harvard website checked and verified by someone else (who's probably got more reason to ensure it's absolutely correct than a reporter at the Medium Town News that we happily accept as being independent and reliable)? I would argue that it is. But what about a smaller university? Or one in a foreign country? Or a new private university? Most people can spot a reliable source - a book published by a major publisher, a major newspaper etc, and a totally unreliable one - facebook/myspace/johnsmith.com etc. It is those in the middle that cause the problems, so whilst I agree entirely with the concept that we need "significant coverage in independent reliable sources", BLPPROD is only one mechanism we can choose to use to get them. It is a way to keep out SOME of the worst articles by hopefully instructing the article creators to supply a ref. For everything else, use {{BLP sources}}, {{BLP IMDb refimprove}}, {{notability}}, {{no footnotes}}, {{primary sources}}, {{unreliable sources}} or whatever and then if need be use CSD/PROD/AfD as required. The-Pope (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

But the policy already handles that problem - WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source says These provisions do not apply to autobiographies published by reliable third-party publishing houses, because they are not self-published. Hence, a profile/bio on a Harvard website that has not also appeared as a published work by the same institution is not acceptable as a sole source for a BLP. Your argument that it is would first have to be discussed at WT:BLP. *shrug* --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

If I was arguing that this was the standard we were aiming for then I would be trying to change WP:BLP. But I'm not, and I can't recall ever trying to change the BLP policy. BLPprod is a special type of deletion for completely unsourced BLPs. As The-Pope has explained we have templates such as {{BLP sources}}, {{BLP IMDb refimprove}} for articles that don't yet meet our BLP standards but don't qualify for BLPprod. Remember the default approach for articles that need improvement is to edit them and improve them. BLPprod is for a particular group of unsourced BLPs where we have consensus to operate a reference or delete policy. BLP is a policy that applies to all information on living people - including articles that merit {{BLP sources}} or {{BLP IMDb refimprove}} tags. ϢereSpielChequers 22:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, and as I re-read this just to make sure I got it right, I noticed the probable cause for confusion - does a profile/bio on a website of a publisher count as an autobiography published by the same publisher? I don't think it does, unless it also has an ISSN/ISBN attached to it. I think the policy refers to the old-school meaning of "publishing" (internally reviewed and made available in finalized form, usually printed), rather than the more general modern meaning (made available to public on the web). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

No the confusion is between articles where we risk damage to living people, and ones which are not independent and therefore don't establish notability and may be overly positive. BLPprod was designed to reduce the risk of us libelling people. If you want to extend BLPprod to articles sourced from university bios you don't just need to demonstrate that those articles don't comply with wp:BLP and need improvement; You need to make the case that there is a significant risk that those University Bios could be saying dishonest and harmful things about their subjects. If you can demonstrate that then I think it would be easy to get consensus to broaden BLPprod to a larger group of BLPs. ϢereSpielChequers 22:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL. The bios themselves are more likely to be hagiographies than harmful to subjects, but anyway, I was more concerned about other later edits being harmful. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"Other later edits being harmful" is a problem we face across the English language version of Wikipedia. But BLPprod isn't very relevant here, if you want to tackle that problem you need to upgrade our defences against vandalism. There are some incremental improvements we can make by use of vandalism detectors that focus on harmful edits. But for a serious improvement we'd need to emulate the DE wiki example and implement Flagged Revisions, however with even pending changes failing to get consensus I'm not expecting a serious improvement in our vandal fighting tools in the near future. ϢereSpielChequers 22:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• BLPPROD was introduced as a compromise to stem the flow of unreliably sourced BLPs into Wikipedia (some admins and ArbCom even supported all unreliably sourced BLPs being speedily deleted). Saying that a mere tweet disallows BLPPROD goes against the purpose of the process and is a poor move - we need reliably sourced biographies of living people, and a Tweet, a random blog, or a Facebook page don't cut it. The word "reliable" should be reinstated, and editors should not kid themselves that such poor sources can support an article by themselves. Fences&Windows 17:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • If the sources don't support the article, then delete it using another method. Like I said above. Yes, we know what it definitely unreliable. But the line between unreliable and reliable gets VERY grey very quickly, to make it too murky to use definitively - or will result in massive scope/rule creep. PROD and AFD are your friends. This was brought in because we saw a 50,000 pile of articles that some wanted to delete and we needed a way to help stop it getting bigger. Well, the 50,000 is gone. BLPPROD is holding in at about 100-150 in the queue. It's working. Are many getting through? No idea, but we have database reports, NewArticleBots, cat searches etc that can help find them. My favourite deletion statement is "no significant coverage in independent reliable sources". Completely neutral, no "belittlement" by saying "Not notable"... just a "it can't be proved". Mind you, my ultimate aim would be to somehow prevent poorly referenced articles from even getting into Wikipedia... but the WMF seems to think that any restriction at the front gate is evil and will drive everyone away. So we are busy chasing the bugs out of the living rooms. The-Pope (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • It would be nice to be able to exclude unreliable sources, and, as one of the editors who seem to do the most monitoring of PRODs and BLPPRODs, I usually leave a BLPPROD tag in place if the only source is to Facebook or equivalent, and the articles get deleted with no fuss, but the greyness of the concept of reliabilty has been made very clear in this discussion, where it has been claimed that biographies of professors on university web sites are unreliable. They are not independent, and may not be neutral, but they are much more reliable than many of the local newspapers or web sites about pornography awards or wrestling promotions or the latest transient popular music genre that are routinely considered reliable here. Universities don't risk their reputations by publishing falsehoods. If we are to require reliablity then that concept needs to be strictly defined, and not confused with independence. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Your interpretation of university staff official bios as necessarily reliable sources for BLPs is really at odds with WP:BLP in several other regards - such a page can easily include business addresses (which are listed as unacceptable personal details), claims about third parties, events not directly related to the subject, it may not be neutral according to WP:NPOV... I figure all of those rules were probably made for some other use case, but the end result is the same, as I already mentioned - if we just let people put a single external link to an official bio to the external links section and say that's enough to avoid BLPPROD, we didn't really do anyone a favor - we allowed the newbie article creator to be lazy, risk later subtle vandalism that will be easier to miss, and up the burden on other editors because PROD is even more trivially contested, and AFD in turn requires even more effort. If we're going to limit BLPPROD like this, that means we're not really all that interested in BLP-specific abuse prevention, so we might as well tone down a lot of that text in WP:BLP. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
      • There is no need to alter WP:BLP to bring it inline with BLPprod. We have several other tags such as {{BLP sources}} for BLPs that need improvement but which don't qualify for BLPprod. As for BLP specific abuse prevention, there are much better ways to find BLP abuses than to trawl BLPs sourced from official bios. If there is one thing that we established in the unreferenced BLP cleanup it was that if we were prioritising tasks in terms of effective dealing with BLP abuse, poorly sourced BLPs would not be the task to prioritise first as there are several far more effective ways to find BLP abuses on the pedia. ϢereSpielChequers 00:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.