Talk:Phum Sophorn

BLPPROD

I have removed the BLPPROD again. The article is ineligible for BLPPROD. The editor that placed the BLPPROD removed one source prior to placing the BLPPROD and left a second source on the article. An article is only eligible for BLPPROD if there are no sources in any form that verify any information on the article. The policy does not require these sources to be reliable. Since there was a source on the article prior to the BLPPROD being placed the claim that it can only be removed after a reliable source is placed is wrong. ~ GB fan 22:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

BLPPROD does require that the sourcing be reliable. It says so right in the instructions templated on the article in this revision: Once the article has at least one reliable source, you may remove this tag. Also at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people#Objecting: To be canceled, this process (when correctly initiated) requires the presence of at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the biography. Do not remove the {{prod blp/dated}} until the biography has at least one such source. Although I don't think this is subject to any interpretation, I'm going to ask for a third opinion on this. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The policy is pretty clear about it needing to be a reliable source. Not sure why the user believes otherwise. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

You have the question wrong. I agree, once a BLPPROD is properly applied, a reliable source must be added to remove it. The problem is that to properly apply the BLPPROD the article must be completely unsourced. The second sentence of the policy says: To be eligible for a BLPPROD tag, the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography. This had sources prior to your addition of the BLPPROD. Those sources make it ineligible for the BLPPROD in the first place. If it didn't have any sources then it takes a reliable source to remove it. ~ GB fan 00:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean. @Bri how are you interpreting that line? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

GBfan has it right. BLPProd was a much argued over compromise, part of the thinking was that our problem was with completely unsourced articles, and that people rescuing articles could reasonably be expected to work to a higher standard. ϢereSpielChequers 10:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• So the source removed was a press release most likely by the subject or their agent posted to an anonymous Blogspot blog that has been determined by consensus to be crap. And the policy says unreferenced articles are eligible, and doesn't mention retrospective state of the article sourcing. But you want to leave it as is? I'm not interested in wikilawyering this any more than I already have. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Bri, you seem to misunderstand what I am saying. While I did mention the source you removed, that is not the point. When you added the BLPPROD the article still had a link to her instagram account and that link verifies information in the article. BLPPROD is very clear that to add the BLPPROD the article must be completely unsourced and the reliablility of the sources on the article do not matter. Since there was a source on the article it is ineligible for BLPPROD. The regular PROD and AFD are still available to use. ~ GB fan 14:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I have boldly redirected the article to Cambodian beauty pageants#Miss Cambodia. ~ GB fan 15:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)