Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Unreferenced BLP Rescue/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Francisco "O Baby" Rosario

The prod was removed from Francisco "O Baby" Rosario, anyone want to try to find a source before it is sent to AfD? I dropped a line on the removers talkpage but it was his first edit so I'm not holding out much hope. J04n(talk page) 18:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

My lack of faith in the newbie has been proven wrong, he pointed me to a source! J04n(talk page) 19:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I love it when that happens! --j⚛e deckertalk to me 01:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Editting Toolbar

Anybody else having problem with their editting toolbar? I use the old editting toolbar rather than the new enhanced editting tool bar as the old one links to the reftools citation templates which can autofill the citation template fields from the source when it can which usually results in a full citation when pulling from Google Books. Today, I find I got the enhanced toolbar to due to an upgrade glitch, but regardless of my preference setting, and regardless of what I do, I cannot get the old toolbar back. I've reported it at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 131#Editing. I thought I'd share this in case anybody else was having a similar problem. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you try My Preferences → Editing → Beta features → unclick "Enhanced editing toolbar". I'm using monobook and it worked for me. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Reply - That's the first thing I tried. I've checked, unchecked, rechecked, unchecked again, in combination with cache bypasses, clearing caches, restarting browsers, and changing browsers (IE8, Chrome, Firefox), all to no avail. -- Whpq (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
My commiserations then because the alternative toolbar is an eyesore; hopefully someone will come up with a fix at VPT. Good luck! --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Argh! I see what you mean! Where's the Cite icon gone?--Plad2 (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I had the problem this morning but it fixed by just unclicking my preference. J04n(talk page) 18:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Plad2, you may want to chime in at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Missing on toolbar - Cite button and cite templates. It seems you are not the only one with the problem. And J04n, I am so envious. That did not work for me. :( -- Whpq (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Wow, no one's ever been envious of me before, and I'm probably the least technically inclined regular contributer to Wikipedia. J04n(talk page) 19:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not getting the cite pulldowns either. --j⚛e deckertalk to me 20:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

On a tenuously related note - I can't get my watchlist script to work. Anyone else using 'user:js/watchlist.js' by chance? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Joy! - I found a way to get the toolbar back! In your preferences, under the editing tab, there are two checkboxes that are related to beta features. The first is supposed to toggle between the old edit toolbar and the advanced (yuck) edit toolbar. The second relates to some features. Previously, the state of the second checkbox was irrelevant. Now, in order to get the old toolbar back, you need to uncheck both boxes. -- Whpq (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Me too. Normality is restored!--Plad2 (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • aarrrrgggggghhhhhh!!!!!! - The CITE button has mysteriously diappeared from the toolbar. It was there a moment ago as I had added a source to Ged Lynch using it. After nominating Chieu Luu for deletion, I moved on to Francisco Luna Kan for which there is an Encyclopedia of Mexican Politicians. An easy reference addition from Google Books and.... hey! Where did the CITE button go? -- Whpq (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
    Check again? Working for me here--but I use Vector, and Reftools is just different under Vector.. It's definitely crazy-making to not have the cite tools though! --j⚛e deckertalk to me 19:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
It just disappeared for me too (using Monobook on Firefox). --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Tried switching to Monobook, and turning off the advanced editing bar and dialogs. Doing all three got me back to "buttons", but even so, I'm still seeing the cite button. I'd lend y'all mine.  :) --j⚛e deckertalk to me 20:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Just saw [1] this note go by. --j⚛e deckertalk to me 20:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. It's pretty clear that the activation of refTools through the gadgets tab in the user preferences got borked when something else was repaired. The import provides an override that basically rams it in the hard way. I'd prefer to the gadgets facility but until this release settles down, importing the script is a decent way to get around the problem. -- Whpq (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I've posted yet another note at VPT regarding this new SNAFU. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Earlier today I thought I lost the 'cite' button but it moved from the far right to the far left, now it's back on the right. J04n(talk page) 20:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Adding importScript('User:Apoc2400/refToolbarPlus.js'); to your monobook.js or vector.js as appropriate will get you a cite button. On mine (vector), the cite button is on the left side instead of the right, and the subsequent citation format selector buttons are not properly ligned up, but a proper reference can be generated. Does anybody know what the correct .js file is for import? My understanding is that the one I used may differ from the one used by the gadget checkbox. -- Whpq (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
My cite button just popped back in again, so you may want to try without the script. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2009, unloved, unlovable?

  • You know, I thought that by leaving the oldest month untouched (February 2009), we'd see some regular downward movement in that months' numbers from the folks that regularly decry old unreferenced BLPs. That doesn't seem to be the case. I haven't kept close track, but I recall it being 431 a few weeks ago, and its only dropped to 412. Once we clear out June 2009, we'll have the first half of 2009 cleared except for February.--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd noticed the same thing. The overall totals are going down, though, and (I think) faster than our month is, so there's someone else making some progress out there somewhere. I think.  :) --j⚛e deckertalk to me 07:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Some progress is definitely being made, but things have slowed down, there's no doubt about that. At some number I think we should start a broader campaign to "eliminate UBLPS" forever -- maybe at around 3 or 5,000, maybe with a one month goal.--Milowent • talkblp-r 16:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I've been tracking the numbers somewhat. As of January 31 there were 440 articles in the February 2009 cat. So it's being picked away at, but not nearly at the pace we saw when the watchlist notice was still up. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The watchlist reminder was helpful as was the bot that sends reminders to the articles' authors and the Wikiprojects. Perhaps we can redo those? Lot of burnout with this project, I know I've slowed down of late. J04n(talk page) 16:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I've slowed, too, but only due to real life commitments which have had to take priority with my free time over the last few weeks. I'll be back properly once I'm clear of them.--Plad2 (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Same here, work stuff as well, but that's always on and off with me.  :) --j⚛e deckertalk to me 19:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Feb 2011 is taking a 20-article or more dip today. --j⚛e deckertalk to me 22:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Phil Bridger! The-Pope (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Heraldry references anyone?

I'm stuck on Ferdinand, Hereditary Prince of Leiningen, I left a message at WikiProject Royalty and Nobility but do any of you have any ideas? I've had no luck getting some of these either adequately sourced or deleted. J04n(talk page) 22:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  • For Ferdinand, there are these two: this and this (used as refs on the article relating to his father, although I have no idea whether they count as RS. Found this used as a ref on the article about his wife. Searching on Ferdinand "Prinz zu Leiningen" brings up a lot of hits which one could trawl through if these aren't good enough.--CharlieDelta (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Cite button gone again?

Not seeing it here at the moment, although I was using it earlier. --j⚛e deckertalk to me 23:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've still got the cite button.--CharlieDelta (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'll fiddle with my config more then. Thanks! --j⚛e deckertalk to me 23:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Fiddling with settings and clearing cache (or time) seem to have restored it. yayz. --j⚛e deckertalk to me 23:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT is whacked?

I worked on Alexander Radchenko earlier today picking an article from a lengthy "R" list. Did some other stuff and just went back to pick another "R" article and found that most were gone. I though "Crazy mad props to whoever rifled through that!". Then I noticed that "J" list was full of articles when the letter had been cleared. And it was because their first name begins with "J". I looked at Jean Ragnotti thinking maybe somebody removed the DEFAULTSORT but it still there yet this is being dumped into "J" rather than "R". -- Whpq (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that would likely explain it. I'd just posted on Village Pump (technical) about the muddleness, but I agree it looks DEFAULTSORTy--although I can't for the life of me how a bug in DS would result in the subsections being out of order. Certainly amusing. --joe deckertalk to me 20:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmmmm.... And the letters in the categories are out of order, and repeat as well. I'm guessing that there was a software update that didn't work as planned. -- Whpq (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. Ah well, I'll enjoy the surreality while it lasts.  :) --joe deckertalk to me 20:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Yay! The entries are properly sorted! Boo! The "R" section is really big again. -- Whpq (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

400 free Credo Reference accounts available

Another 400 free Credo Reference accounts have been made available for Wikipedians, kindly donated by the company and arranged by Erik Möller of the Wikimedia Foundation. We've drawn up some eligibility criteria to direct the accounts to content contributors, and after that it's first-come, first-served. The list will open on Wednesday, March 23 at 22:00 UTC, and will remain open for seven days. See Wikipedia:Credo accounts.

Feel free to add your name even if you're lower on the list than the 400th, in case people ahead of you aren't eligible, and good luck! SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 04:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that signups have just opened for these. --joe deckertalk to me 22:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Far less than 400 editors have signed up, so even if you don't meet the criteria you can still sign up under Additional names. I'm sure anyone that follows this page could make great use of an account. J04n(talk page) 12:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out J04n, I assumed they would have been snapped up in short order so had not put in for an account. The benefit of having access to the additional resources with regard to the work being done here is enormous. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 13:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I seem to have access to Credo through my local UK public library card (which I didn't know until now), so don't need to take up this offer.--CharlieDelta (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Watchlist notice

I put in a request for another watchlist notice. J04n(talk page) 12:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Fingers crossed. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 13:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I've added my voice there, and suggested a wording modification, comments/improvements to the wording might be helpful. --joe deckertalk to me 21:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

We've been given three weeks from 8am this morning and the total has already dipped below 9,000. Current totals are:

unreferenced BLPs

February 2009 202
June 2009 13
July 2009 661
August 2009 1,425
September 2009 504
October 2009 459
December 2009 265 Total for 2009 3,529
January 2010 398
February 2010 358
March 2010 359
April 2010 20
May 2010 211
June 2010 678
July 2010 530
August 2010 337
September 2010 340
October 2010 241
November 2010 334
December 2010 191 Total for 2010 3,997
January 2011 634
February 2011 333
March 2011 490 Total for 2011 1,457
Undated articles 28

All articles 8,989

So already we've got the 2009 figure below the 2010 one, and if the watchlisting works as well as it did last time we could end April with fewer 2009 uBLPs than 2011 ones. ϢereSpielChequers 11:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Next task

I know that in the past we've steered clear of the oldest month, thinking natural selection will take care of it, but this case, with it dropping naturally only very slowly, and giving us the opportunity to clear out a whole half year, think it suits. Nice and small, too, after the previous behemoth! Interesting that despite the joe-excepted burnout, June 09 was still done at a 25ppd average, compared to a 35ppd average for most (but not all) previous months.The-Pope (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

--joe deckertalk to me 07:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
February 09 still has some that look reasonably sourceable (and plenty more that don't), so I'd go for it. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
February '09 is fine with me. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 13:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Letter template

I references all of the 'G's but I can't see the individual letters in edit mode in order to cross off the letter 'G' on the main project page - is the template set up correctly? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, but since it only has us list letters that are done, and none had been done yet, it wasn't as obvious what to do next. I fixed it.  :) --joe deckertalk to me 18:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes, I remember now. It's been a long time since I've completed an entire letter grouping myself. For shame! --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

What's next?

There's only one article left not at deletion, it's Omprakash Singh.

So, anyway, what next?  ;-) --joe deckertalk to me 17:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose August 09 is the most logical choice, it's the only one left with >660. We'll really be able to see the end of the tunnel when it's finished. J04n(talk page) 17:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice not to have that monster staring at us. --joe deckertalk to me 17:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
You guys are crazy! But I'll chip in best i can on that beast.--Milowent • talkblp-r 20:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Refs only available behind a paywall?

I'm surprised that this is the first time I've encountered this problem: the only possible refs I can find for the article on Adrian Fulle are behind various paywalls which makes them, I think, unusable for our purposes. The article itself is a puff piece created by the subject's own company which needs fixing (if it survives). I would have said that it is a possible candidate for deletion on notability grounds but it is also possible that the stuff behind the paywalls would count towards establishing WP:GNG and/or WP:ENT. Advice appreciated.--CharlieDelta (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Pay-per-view articles are acceptable, refs only have to be verifiable, not free. Just ensure that you include as much information as possible in the citation in case someone wants to look the ref up (at their local library or somesuch) - see WP:PAYWALL. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 22:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Yup. If you can tease some quotes out of the article, it's usable, I've sometimes found that just the blurb from Google search on a paywalled article (if not the abstract at the pay site) is enough to establish some fact about the individual, etc. I use a quote=xxx parameter on the cites in those cases. --joe deckertalk to me 22:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, both. My faulty memory. I thought I had read somewhere that one shouldn't use sources which require a subscription but WP:PAYWALL is very clear on this point.--CharlieDelta (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
You may have been thinking of WP:LINKSTOAVOID which are guidelines on what not to put in the external links section. -- Whpq (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Feb 2009 trophy

Hey. We didn't discuss a trophy for Feb 2009; I guess because it went by so fast. In honour of the speed at which that was worked through, I suggest this: -- Whpq (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. I don't think we did one for June 2009 either... I think this one is appropriate... with an obvious follow up for the current task! The-Pope (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Nice choices! --joe deckertalk to me 16:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I support the mountain! -- 16:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone for Taiwanese baseball?

There are 27 Taiwanese baseball players in the UBLP category, if anyone fancies a mostly routine task. Many seem to have been created by the same user back in 2007. Most have links through the zh.wikipedia page to the player's stats page at the Chinese Professional Baseball League website and to a non-RS but informative page at Wikipedia Taiwan Baseball, both of which are useful as the transliteration of the Chinese names varies a bit. No worries if this doesn't appeal to anyone. I'll get to it myself at some point. Haven't posted a message at either WikiProject Baseball (the articles probably need updating as well) or WikiProject Taiwan yet but could do that when I get back later today.--CharlieDelta (talk) 08:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep this in mind for my next "run through a list" task, I've still to finish off the rest of the MEPs. --joe deckertalk to me 17:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
For players from the Brother Elephants, http://www.brothers.com.tw/player_flypage.php?cate=pl&pno=16 (replace 16 by the player #, which is on most of the pages I've seen) works if the player is still active. In another case, searching on that domain worked. --joe deckertalk to me 15:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, anyone want to take a shot at Elisa

I'm stuck on Elisa (Japanese singer), and could really use an extra pair of eyes. Thanks. --joe deckertalk to me 19:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Relying on machine translation, this seems to be a substantial article about something X-mas related for Elisa. The problem is that the translatio is so bad I'm not quite sure what it says, and I can't tell if this is a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't envy you. She obviously exists and the info seems accurate (see www.jpopasia.com/celebrity/elisa/), but I'm stumped on finding anything that meets RS. Yeah for J-Pop! --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I dug up a name from the history of an active editor who looks like they might have made a content contribution, and left a note on her/his talk page, perhaps we'll get something that way. --joe deckertalk to me 19:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I've added one reference to the article from a news story on Anime News Network. If you are looking for people who can read Japanese to help finding more sources, maybe someone listed as a participant at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Music task force would be able to help. Calathan (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! --joe deckertalk to me 22:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I've also noticed that the official page for Ef (which I noticed was used as a source in the Ef: A Fairy Tale of the Two. article) has a profile of her with some biographical information. That isn't an independent source, but I would think it would be reliable. Is there any reason why it shouldn't be used? For that matter, is there any reason why her official page that is given as an external link wouldn't be reliable for verifying her biographical information? Since she passes WP:NMUSIC based on having songs chart and having songs used in notable TV series, I don't think independent sources are needed for showing notability, and I don't think there is any reason non-independent sources can't be used just to verify her biographical information. Calathan (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it's fine really "factual" biographical data, the thing to be careful about with non-independent sources for verifiability is bias (perhaps in what's not said as much as what is said) and framing, I've seen a lot folks talk about their awards, when they were part of a larger group that received the award. That sort of nuance sometimes gets lost in primary sources. But for a lot uncontroversial stuff, e.g., birthplace, I think a primary source is the only place you can get the info. --joe deckertalk to me 03:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Related/non-independent sources can be used as a last resort for UBLP purposes, but isn't always enough to prove notability at an AFD.The-Pope (talk) 04:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

been a while since we have a hoax...

What do folks think about Shantal Méndez?

  • Oh, quite a nice hoax there, joe! An IP editor questioned "is she real" on the talk page [2] the day the article was created, September 28, 2007. As originally created [3], also, it had additional claims, including a #1 U.S. single for a song called "Tenemos Tiempo" which, of course, is also fictional. There were also photos in the article at the time, long since deleted for not having proper permissions stated--Milowent • talkblp-r 02:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Nom nom nom...hoaxalicious!--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 02:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd missed the earlier song names, many of the other song/album names were cleverly generic. Brilliant! --joe deckertalk to me 05:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
95% fake. What puzzles me is that the 'Shantal Méndez' facebook page has got likes. The IP that created this article also created Margalit Tzan'ani so that could be a hoax also. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
No, that one's real: [4] Hut 8.5 08:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it Alanis Morrisette.

I'm going through the lists of remaining sportspeople and politicians (I find them much easier than those pesky artists/authors/actors and musicians!) and by now I've clicked on most of them at least once, but for whatever reason moved on without adding a ref (ie they look hard!) Well today I clicked again on Richie Reid, he's one of our favourites - an Irish hurler. I am so used to clicking on the google news link and instantly clicking on "archives" that I almost missed the top link - a "where are they now" feature on him that was published yesterday! "Like raaainnn, on your wedding day... Isn't it coincidental". The-Pope (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Grin, that's awesome! I've been impressed at how often one of those long-lost hurlers get saved by a nostalgia piece, but I've never had timing quite that good! --joe deckertalk to me 16:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Seven left....

Of the remaining few--nearly all of them have some language challenges attached. Yi Chung, the Korean prince, I've requested help from WikiProject Korea from, there are sources at KRWIKI on that Prince but I can't quite connect those sources well enough to use one in our article because of the language trouble, I suspect someone with a bit of Korean would have no trouble bringing him up to "BLP sourced". The three Z's are apparently all related, and might be easily taken out with a single good source if they're really notable. Enjoy! --joe deckertalk to me 18:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and PS: What month next? --joe deckertalk to me 18:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I've found a source which confirms those 3 Afghan singers exist and are all related, so I've added that. The four remaining articles that aren't tagged for some sort of deletion are Yi Chung, Jun Yamaguchi, Shota Yasuda and Sharnya Yoshihara. Hut 8.5 18:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
You guys are amazing! I've contributed very little to this month, due to other commitments, but I'm sure we were looking at 80+ this morning and I get in from work to find we are down to 7? Impressive!.--CharlieDelta (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Less of a difference than you'd think, the 7 looks like about 40, the 80 included those at deletion, and there's a mess of 'em. But yeah, a bunch of folks have been ripping through the list the last few days, it's been great! --joe deckertalk to me 22:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Jun is down, leaving Yi Chung, Shota Yasuda and Sharnya Yoshihara --joe deckertalk to me 23:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC) --joe deckertalk to me 23:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The PROD for Daljit Neer has expired, but the article still isn't listed at Category:Expired proposed deletions. Does anyone know why that is? Cheers Tooga - BØRK! 00:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind, J04n nuked it. :-) Tooga - BØRK! 00:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The expired proposed deletions directory is, in my experience, fairly useless, something to do with caching. I work off of WP:PRODSUM instead. Also, last I looked, there was (says PRODSUM) a couple day backlog of expired PRODs. --joe deckertalk to me 00:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, the Prince is the only one left. Anyone have any contacts here who can manage a bit of Korean? --joe deckertalk to me 06:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Found one... OK, feel like snack or another main course - or a supper? The-Pope (talk) 06:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Hee, it's all good either way, after that last meal I doubt any month will ever look quite so imposing! --joe deckertalk to me 07:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The 300-article bump

You will note that our momentary drop below 6,000 came with a rebound to over 6,200. The jump was due to Z-bot finding living people marked with the unreferenced tag and upgrading that tag to BLP unreferenced. --joe deckertalk to me 17:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

October 2009 remainders

We're down to the last few that aren't under some form of deletion:

  1. Chen Chun-hui
  2. Chen Lien-hung
  3. Tiago Carneiro da Cunha
  4. Arian Demolli <- I've dropped a note at WikiProject Albania asking for assistance on this Albanian TV presenter. -- Whpq (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
    Whoops, I just PROD'd that one, I'll keep an eye on it and deprod if there's any sign of possible attention. I hope they come up with something, my eyes are glazing over looking through video and linkfarm sites. --joe deckertalk to me 00:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
    I received a message on my talk page from a member of Wikiproject Albania with the opinion that this person isn't notable. -- Whpq (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, save for Demolli's PROD'd-but-hopefully-still-to-be-rescued state, we're finished with this month.  :) --joe deckertalk to me 00:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

What next?

I was kinda looking at September 2009, but it's all good, really. What d'y'all think? --joe deckertalk to me 01:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Or...we could crush December like a bug? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 01:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The hypnotic power of the phrase "crush like bug" is far too powerful for me to deny. --joe deckertalk to me 02:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I was going to use the word "smite" but I thought it may be too intimidating. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 02:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I used to work at a place where the phrase "crush like bug" was enormously common, and I've always liked the sound of the phrase as a result.  :) Smiting is good too, but yeah, it might be a bit much for some. --joe deckertalk to me 03:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Let the bugcrushing begin! (And start looking for a crushed bug related photo for the trophy room!) The-Pope (talk) 07:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

A challenge

Currently there are 900 UBLPs left from 2009. We've been averaging 30-50 per day recently, so it should be done by early June. July 2 will be the 1 year anniversary of this project. There are a further 1662 from the first half of 2010 - ie 2562 UBLPs that were tagged before WP:URBLPR existed. There are 15+30+2=47 days left until the anniversary... 2562/47 = 54.5. Not much more than our average.

I'm not going to ask Joe, J04n, Pburka, CharlieD and the other regulars to step up their pace - you guys are doing more than your fair share. I think that we should approach some of the old guard, or admins/experienced editors in general, or maybe do another watchlist notice in mid June, and try to expand it to 10-20 people doing 3-5 each day, not 3-5 people doing 10-20 each day. Clearing out every UBLP that existed when this project started by the 12 month anniversary will be an awesome achievement... so who's up for it? The-Pope (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It'd sure be cool to manage that! I suspect we're not going to manage a new watchlist notice just yet, but I'd love to think about other ways of getting more hands. I thought about another set of notices to the projects, and it's possible that a notice targeted at a subset of articles might be a new twist that captures people's attention, dunno.
This seems like a good place to slip in a fact--In terms of article creation date, it's really clear that BLPPROD is keeping the front door closed as we clear out things from the back, Near as I can tell, over 90% of the unsourced BLPs right now were created (not tagged, but created on or before March 18, 2010. --joe deckertalk to me 01:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Great idea! Good to have a target to aim at.--CharlieDelta (talk) 06:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Next?

September? July? Something further out? --joe deckertalk to me 01:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

and off we go!--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelcey Brade

I nominated this at AfD but there has been no response. Can the BLP Rescue team perhaps find a good reason to keep it? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Afraid I came to the same conclusion you did, and added my thoughts at the discussion. Cheers, --joe deckertalk to me 06:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Remaining

Since Catscan is still having problems here's a list of the ones still to reference or tag for deletion:

  1. Masahiko Arimachi - Japanese Wiki entry is also unreferenced - well, i found an ANN link, at least its something.--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  2. Runar Bauer
  3. Patricia Bermudez-Hizon
  4. Madhav Bhattarai
  5. Choi Kyung-ah
  6. Ronny Cush
  7. Da Ya - maybe redirect this one to Hey Girl (group)? I looked the other day and didn't have much luck.--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    That was all i could manage too, agreed that I'd prefer the redirect. --joe deckertalk to me 17:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    I was unable to find anything either. A redirect makes the most sense. -- Whpq (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    Done. --joe deckertalk to me 18:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  8. Tudor Gheorghe
  9. Gamal Hasan
  10. Yu Hasebe
  11. Positive K
  12. Shouzou Kaga
  13. Kanchi Kaul
  14. Yuuko Kohara
  15. John McCormack (Irish footballer)
  16. Yoshiaki Manabe
  17. Shigeharu Matsuda
  18. Yoko Matsumoto
  19. Amr Mostafa
  20. Ray Munns
  21. Tim Murphy (hurler)
  22. Nishida Tatsuo
  23. Ernesto Piedras
  24. Yuriko Shiratori
  25. Tom Walsh (Kilkenny hurler)
  26. Willie Walsh (Cork hurler)
  27. Stokley Williams
  28. David Wilson (violinist) 1 ref added. Changed tag to 'refimproveBLP'
  29. Tom Yasumi
  30. Yuhanon Mor Militos

Hut 8.5 17:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Next....

Finish the year? --joe deckertalk to me 18:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone have eyes for Naseem Vicky?

Just sent Naseem Vicky to AfD for a second round, but I don't feel too good about it. There's a lot of non-RS stuff out there to sort though, and I the Urdu language barrier is tall, so there's probably something there that I've missed, at least that's what my gut (and the unanimous keep at the previous AfD) are telling me. Have at!  :) --joe deckertalk to me 03:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Recruiting notice

I thought it might be worthwhile trying another recruiting notice - but before we do another watchlist one (maybe at the end of the month?), it might be worth a different tack. I've posted messages on noticeboards or project talk pages in the past, and on user talk pages of those who've created UBLPs, but we've never tried a direct appeal to other experienced editors. There are plenty of good editors out there who have either helped out in the past or just haven't ever come this way. I was thinking if each of us posted the following message, or a variant of it as you see fit, to talk pages of possibly interested editors (maybe those who took part in the BLPRFCs?) or editors that you "know" from other wiki interactions, we might be able to finish off the remaining 4875 fairly quickly - remember 5000 UBLPs were removed in December. So, here are my ideas for the messages to users and projects. Feel free to use them as is, edit them, or write your own from scratch... but lets see how big a chunk we can take out of the count in June 2011. (And I'll try to update the "by topic" list count later tonight... Dec 4 is a long time ago!) Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

For users:

Unreferenced BLPs - the final surge

Since early in 2010, many editors have assisted in the referencing or removal of over 90% of the Unreferenced Biographies of Living People, bringing the total down from over 50,000 to the current 317 (as of 15:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)). We are now asking for your help in finishing this task. There are two main projects which are devoted to removing UBLPs from en.Wikipedia:

All you have to do is pick your articles and then add suitable references from reliable sources and remove the {{BLP unsourced}} template. There is no need to log your changes, register or remove the articles from the list. If you need any help, or have any comments, please ask at WP:URBLPR or WT:URBLP.

We understand that everyone has different priorities for their limited time on Wikipedia, so if you are unable to help, that's OK too, but thank you for any assistance you can provide. The-Pope (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

For projects:

Unreferenced BLPs - the final surge

Since early in 2010, many editors have assisted in the referencing or removal of over 90% of the Unreferenced Biographies of Living People, bringing the total down from over 50,000 to the current 317 (as of 15:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)). We are now asking for your help in finishing this task. There are two main projects which are devoted to removing UBLPs from en.Wikipedia:

All you have to do is pick your articles and then add suitable references from reliable sources and remove the {{BLP unsourced}} template. There is no need to log your changes, register or remove the articles from the list. If you need any help, or have any comments, please ask at WP:URBLPR or WT:URBLP.

Thank you for any assistance you can provide. The-Pope (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Just back last night, and I'm sorry I'd missed this, but even sorrier it didn't pull in more hands. I do think that there should be ways of getting more folks to contribute to the final push here, but I'm not sure what precisely, the watchlist notice was relatively recent and I'd rather wait until we're even closer to ask for that again. I'd thought about the author-talk page notices, but the last I looked the 'bot owner who helped with that hadn't been on line for a while. *ponders* --joe deckertalk to me 15:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
You could request that someone else does it, I suppose. If we could get something in the Signpost that might help. Hut 8.5 16:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Good idea. I'll give that a shot in a day or two, I just left a note on Tim's user talk page and want to at least give a day or two for him to respond before taking the request elsewhere. --joe deckertalk to me 17:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I think most article creators from these 2009/early 2010 articles are long gone - or have already been notified and don't care. I only really tried the top 25 projects and Jimbo's talk page - but maybe a more targeted approach of editors we "know" or the projects that have been successful, rather than the projects that still have a lot to go - The ones that did well were (from memory) Ice Hockey, Metal/Opera music, NFL, Cricket, Spain, Sweden, etc. But, the issue there is that it may not be the project as a whole that was active, just one or two of us. ie, I personally cleaned out Australia, Olympics and some of New Zealand, but am only really a "member" of WP:Australia. Maybe we just have to keep chipping away and accept that we will probably get Jan/Feb/Mar 2010 and maybe the little May 2010 by the 1 year anniversary, which will be all pre-BLPPROD ones done, and the rest will be done by August. Still a great effort... just don't go away again Joe!!!! (only kidding- hope you had a great break!) The-Pope (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
*grin* It was a lovely break, and I should be back in town until mid-July sometime, when y'all'll have to miss me for a week or so, Montana this time. *hand to forehead in mock despair* I think you're probably right about most article creators, I really think the user watchlist stuff wouldn't help much, but really, I'd take another 100-200 if that's all we got, and we might get that, even if only mostly from the most recent months.
We'll get this sucker wrestled to the ground, I'm sure of it. --joe deckertalk to me 15:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

BLPPROD run

I just BLP Prodded about 35 completely unreferenced(with 1 exception) BLPs that where created in the last week. Expect June 2011 to rise for a while. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Done another 12 created in the last few days. They come though thick and fast. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Are these BLPs

Both are marked as Unreference BLPs. It that appropriate? What makes a BLP and can the BLP PROD be applied to bands and similar? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

BLPPROD does not apply to bands. I asked about that at WT:BLPPROD#Am I correct that BLPPROD does not apply to bands?, and myself and everyone else who responded there agreed that BLPPROD doesn't apply to bands. However, while an article on a band isn't actually a BLP, all aspects of the BLP policy except BLPPROD apply to biographical content about living people anywhere on Wikipedia, even outside of articles (see WP:BLP#Where BLP does and does not apply). So basically, I think it is wrong to mark an article on a band as an unreferenced BLP (since that is technically incorrect), but people should still handle biographical information in articles on bands with the same degree of care as biographical infomation in actual biographies. As for an article on two brothers, I would probably say it is a biography unless it is more about a group or organization those brothers belong to. Calathan (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Reference?

Is the reference on Kathleen Gibson considered a reference so that it can NOT be WP:BLPPRODded? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think so, yes. It's an old magazine, Google Books is enough to confirm that the 1939 edition exists. Hut 8.5 18:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Musicians and thoughts

I'm trying to focus in on some of the associated issues to BLP Rescue. One of the things that crops up is the amount of Unreferenced musician BLPs and the relative slowness that it reduces. This slowness in reduction is in part I think due to the contiued addition of new musician articles marked as unsourced. Many musician pages seems to be one time creations(promotional?). I checked all the recent additions and all off them have at least one link on them, admitely a very low quality one, sometimes the artists personal website, label website, myspace etc. In such cases as have a low quality link should they be marked with the {{BLP unsourced}}? The template documentation implies not. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's been discussed a few times before that the lines between BLP unsourced/BLP sources/BLPPROD are not black and white. Is only a myspace/personal website/facebook/discogs/allmusic/mp3/youtube/imdb/university faculty website/club/sporting database OK or not, what about external links vs inline links vs infobox source etc etc. Everyone has their own "rules" as to what is acceptable for each level of tagging and they generally won't budge.
For maintenance tagging, yes, there's no consensus on how to use them. For the placement of BLPPRODs, however, there is an explicit statement expressed in the nominating section of the policy document, which is very narrow and relatively well-defined. See WP:BLPPROD#Nominating and onward. I personally support an expansion of the use of BLPPROD to allow placement on articles sourced only from obviously self-published sources (MySpace, LIvejournal, Dreamwidth, Tumblr, Facebook,Twitter, AuthorsBandName.com, and so on.), but I'm not convinced there would be support for that. --joe deckertalk to me 15:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Everyone has their own "rules" - true. Sadly that makes hard work because plenty of people will challenge/remove tags etc - and any discussion gets lost in the differece in line in the sand between the tags/processes/policies around what is required to have a BLP. It would be rather useful if at some point the line in the sand for adding tags is the same as the one for removing tags - just for the communications aspect. Anyway, I digress. It seems that in the short term there maybe some clearing by AFD musician whos article does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a database report that shows only 300-400 articles that would qualify for BLPPROD that are tagged with BLP unreferenced, so cleaning up that grey line won't solve much. I think we can only keep slogging through them one at a time and make a call each time, and the only real solution is to be fairly vicious with PROD/AFDing ones that you don't get an easy ref, and forcing the "It's a BLP so it needs good, significant, reliable, independent references" line at AFD if it seems to be drifting towards a "keep on good faith" type of approach. Parts of the Music project - namely Metal and Opera have both been really good - User:J04n I think was instrumental in that work.

And to be honest, MOST of the topic based tasks have been extremely poor. Unless you get a dedicated editor willing to give it focus, they have all been virtually untouched. Sports & regions have been helped by individual sports/regions - olympics, NFL, Football, hockey, Spain, Sweden, Australia etc being cleared, most of the other topics/regions have only been reduced by this month-by-month clearance. The-Pope (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

BLPROD is, in my opinion, greatly underperforming. At the conclusion of the discussions concerning its implementation, 'MySpace, LIvejournal, Dreamwidth, Tumblr, Facebook,Twitter, AuthorsBandName.com, and so on.' narrowly missed getting a consensus for being disallowed as references, and the BLPPROD went into operation with these three sentences in the policy:
  • 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
  • ...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
  • To be canceled, this process requires the presence of at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the biography.
Some users and admins insist that "whether reliable or not" means that the MySpacey sites and blogs must be accepted as sources that 'support a statement'. However, empirical research has found that many new page patrollers do not check out the references that are on page for reliability and/or relevance and hence a reluctant to use the BLPPROD template. In order to be truly effective, BLPPROD clearly needs to disallow those sites as references. There is mounting criticism of the BLPPROD, and if a call for consensus were to be made now, after 14 months of operation, it may have a strong chance of being accepted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Do you think it's time to start an RfC? For what it's worth, while I enforce what I believe to be the letter of what I understand to be the weird BLPPROD compromise, I would (and in fact at the time fully did) support the exclusion of MySpace et al at nomination time for BLPPROD. --joe deckertalk to me 02:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I've tried perhaps three times to get consensus to extend the BLPprod by ignoring four specific sites which allow people to freely create profiles: Linkedin, Facebook, MySpace and YouTube. This would close a real loophole which could be used to create hoaxes and worse, but avoid the embarrassing scenario of Wikipedia declaring a Harvard Professor's bio a BLP risk because it was only sourced to their University website. I think it has been long enough since my last attempt that it is worth broaching the subject again, but there is one awkward issue to face; This has been running for 14 months and there are an unknown number of articles already loaded which would meet the revised criteria, changing the criteria would risk having all of them tagged in one deletion spree, thereby swamping the team who patrol BLPprod. The process is already complex so I wouldn't suggest running two dates at the same time, but we could consider a restart on the expanded criteria, so if we extended the criteria on the 1st August 2011 but changed it to all articles created after the 1st July 2011 we would have a significantly tighter stable door at the price of making a tiny number of overlooked articles slightly harder to delete. I think this would address the most common objections of complexity and starting with a flood, whilst still being acceptable to those who want to tighten the process as a genuine closure of a risky loophole used by some very low grade "articles". ϢereSpielChequers 21:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Moving the creation date bar to keep things from getting even more complex is entirely sensible, only about 300 of the 4300 remaining unref'd BLPs were created *after* March 18, 2010. The BLPPROD as it exists really does make a difference.
However, in looking at the those three hundred just now? I pulled up fifty or so of them, unsystematically. I saw maybe one which would become eligible as a result of excluding your list of four. In several cases the article was sourced only to the self-published source of the article subject (e.g, FredFine.com for the article on Fred Fine), or that source (usually marked "Official site") plus a few of the links on your list.
As much as I tend to think that your proposal is a good one, and remembering that I do need to go look at this a bit more systematically, my first look at the data suggests that extending BLPPROD to exclude those four sources wouldn't change much.
I know of at least two problems with my analysis worth mentioning:
  1. Not all BLPPRODs are being executed to the detailed specifications Kudpung and I mention above. Perhaps the other admins have a different understanding of consensus, or are employing some reasonable IAR, I'm not trying to get into a war about what the current consensus really is. I'm simply acknowledging that the articles that survive the BLPPROD process today might include fewer borderline cases than one might expect as a result.
  2. I approximate creation date by looking at a list sorted by ArticleID. This isn't perfect, but I believe it's close enough approximation for these purposes.
Interesting. *ponders* --joe deckertalk to me 22:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Match the BLP PROD process to the BLP goal. i.e That every BLP has at least one reference that directly supports material in the article. From a process point of view the rules to add a BLPPROD want to be the same for removing a BLPPROD, otherwise you get mis-communications and unnessary arguements. A BLP PROD wants to take no more time then an existing PROD, otherwise there is little point in using a BLPPROD because a PROD is quicker. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty weird that the following recently created BLPs Niaz Mohammad Chowdhury,Petteri Kolinen,Judith sewell wright,Woody Thompson canNOT be BLP PRODDED. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem of matching the process to the goal is that while we achieved consensus on the process we did not achieve consensus on the goal. For those like me whose goal was to prevent harm to living people, a bio sourced to a self published site such as a Professor's page at a university website is a harmless article that needs improvement and better sourcing, not deletion. In hindsight we came up with a complex compromise, but I doubt if we'd get consensus to reduce the requirement for removing a valid BLPprod, or to tighten it to the point of ignoring all self published sources when applying BLPs. As for Joe Decker's research I suspect that was looking at the articles tagged as unreferencedBLPs or RefimproveBLPs and that there will be other poorly sourced recent BLPs as yet unidentified; but I'd also point out that if custom and practice have diverged from policy and the instructions that we give to editors then bringing the three inline is itself a worthwhile thing to do. I don't decline BLPprods that are only sourced to Facebook, Myspace, Youtube or LinkedIn, but unless the policy is changed to allow it I certainly wouldn't BLPprod them. ϢereSpielChequers 07:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be a misunderstanding of primary sources. A self published site such as a Professor's page at a university website is a reliable source so I don't see the problem. Once you have an organisation then the editorial oversight is met. Unlike a myspace or aperson personal website where there is no oversight and it's not a reliable source. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Been reading WP:BLPPRIMARY and it seems a primary source also requires a secondary one. So this is exception (of PRIMARY) for BLPs and why a university site bio is by itself not enough. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 10:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
No one is arguing that bios should be sourced solely from self published sources, the question here is whether to improve them or to make them easier to delete by extending BLPprod to them. BLPprod exists because there is real potential harm to living people in allowing biographies that are unsourced, and I believe we should extend that to articles that are only sourced from sites that accept fake bios. I don't see the same risk from bios sourced from self published sites such as a bio on a university website. So unless someone can explain why such an article is inherently more risky than say a completely unsourced article on a sports team, village, company or dead person then I don't see a case for extending the BLPprod to such articles. ϢereSpielChequers 11:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
To be honest I thought in your previous post you where arguing for that bios should be sourced solely from self published sources. The BLPprod criteria sets the bar upon which everything else gets brought down to, maybe not intentionally but in practice. So my advice would be to make them easier to delete by extending BLP Prod to cover everything that doesn't have at least one reliable source. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Nope when I said "a bio sourced to a self published site such as a Professor's page at a university website is a harmless article that needs improvement and better sourcing, not deletion." I was quite serious about the need for improvement and better sourcing. The idea behind BLPprod was to identify some high risk potentially harmful articles and say they had to be sourced or deleted within 10 days. If it degenerated into simply a way of making articles easier to delete then it would be best to get rid of it. Making articles easier to delete is a disbenefit and something we should only be prepared to do with good reason. I have identified one group of what I believe to be high risk articles that I think BLPprod should be extended to, can anyone else suggest an easily defined group of high risk articles that it would be worth extending BLPprod to, or would anyone care to challenge my description of Myspace, Linkedin, Youtube and Facebook as risky sources? ϢereSpielChequers 12:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I can see where you are coming from. Two points on that, firstly it's not the consensus view and therefore so far the purpose of the BLPPROD discussion has not been to find the ones the 'high risk potentially harmful articles' - although possibly I could focus on finding them. Secondly, identifying all the ones that meet the current BLPPROD criteria is very time consuming and a manual task - and so it doesn't get done for all of them. While there are a number of tools(one of which I'm working on), none of them will ever be 100% accurate. Question, if a list of potentially 'high risk potentially harmful' new articles was created would there be interest in checking it out?Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Facebook, Youtube and Twitter are sites that some organisations are using officially for news releases and publishing reliable info - obviously I'm not claiming that everything on those sites is reliable, far from it, but I can see the possibility that one day someone will link to an "official" youtube/facebook/twitter account of an otherwise reliable source and get very grumpy when we say linking to XYZorg.com is OK, but facebook.com/XYZorg is not.
We are probably down to the last 400 or so UBLP articles that existed when the whole BLPRFC issue happened back at the beginning of 2010. Yes, we've found 4000 "new" UBLPs since then, but counting the articles on Wikipedia:Database_reports/Biographies_of_living_people_possibly_eligible_for_deletion, there are only 288 UBLP articles that were created since the BLPPROD date and not already nominated for deletion. I just randomly picked 10 of them to see why they are UBLPs, but not BLPPRODed. 1 was completely unreferenced (but was an Olympian, so easily referenced), 1 has a faculty external link (but a Russian university), 1 has an ext link to IMDB, 2 have ext links to soccerway or similar reliable football databases, 5 have ext links to their own website, 1 has an ext link to flikr (subject is a photographer), 2 have a bibliography of books (with ISBNs) that they've written and 1 has plenty of refs (but most foreign language) and the back-dated template was on the article when created (ie a cut/paste from another article - probably needs some more investigation as to it's accuracy). The common link is almost all had their "refs" in the External links section, not the References section. Making it clear that {{No footnotes}} is the best tag to use for referenced, but not correctly cited would be one useful task (again, not saying all are acceptable, most are not, but a suitable reference is still a reference even if it's not properly cited inline.
So, whilst I wish that the line between what is or isn't a UBLP was clear, unambiguous and matched BLPPROD, the fact that it isn't, isn't such a big issue - another few months and we'll be down to the final few months and then it's just another maintenance task to be down, not a backlog removal task.The-Pope (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
About {{No footnotes}}, I disagree, it's like a cleanup tag as from a BLP point of view it is poor because it doesn't require a reliable source. Those so called "refs" you refer to can be facebook, myspace and any other link going. Articles in Category:Articles_lacking_in-text_citations does not meet the criteria of having one reliable source, although it might mask the situation. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me. I have seen articles with reliable references (newspaper articles etc) that are listed in an external links section (no inline) tagged with {{blp unreferenced}}, which is plainly wrong. {{No footnotes}} should be used instead. I wasn't suggesting that it is used for any unreliable external links. I often use no footnotes in conjunction with {{BLP sources}} to emphasise that it needs better referencing, and that the links should be moved inline.The-Pope (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I think I understood. Your quite right there willl be some tagged with {{blp unreferenced}} that have a reliable source or reliable sources in the external links. Likewise, there will be articles tagged with {{No footnotes}} with no reliable sources. It's easy to make mistakes with the current tagging and processing, not least of which it's not easy to establish or agree on what is or is not a reliable source. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Quick response to WSC above, yeah, my "research" (you dignify it too much with that label *grin*) is based just at a look at the list of things tagged unreferenced BLP, and it's clear to me that there are still things I'd call unreferenced BLPs that are as yet untagged. I do get the sense that we've taken a significant bite out of the "invisible unreferenceds" in the last year, but that is a difficult thing to measure.
Addressing the question of articles based solely on self-published sources, that's a tricky thing. I certainly don't think that FredFine.com is a great source of reliable information about (say), the hypothetical guitarist Fred Fine, it may be accurate in the main, but it's certainly not going to be a neutral source. I could see an argument for for BLPPROD'ing articles like that, but I'd have far more of a problem with excluding the official university site of a professor, or the official site of a member of a national legislature--the existence of those sites provides some reliability as to at least one claim, something that's probably less true about the guitarist. And I'm not sure it's easy to right a bright-line test to distinguish those cases, even though "I know it when I see it." Such an expansion would likely be harder to get consensus for, I think the community is (rightly) less concerned about hoaxes and promotional BLPs than it is about libel, but promotional, non-neutral BLPs are a real problem for the encyclopedia as well. --joe deckertalk to me 17:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Joe, I agree that promotional non-neutral BLPs are a problem, but the difficulty of discussing them in the context of BLPprod is that it tempts some people to think of deletion as the first tool to consider when fixing problems instead of the last option when all else has failed. ϢereSpielChequers 17:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep, agreed. No easy answers! --joe deckertalk to me 18:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Unreferenced_BLP_Rescue/Archive_4&oldid=1080660835"