Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

RfC: Remove the grandfather clause?

The following discussion 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.

---

Thirty days from today, it will be seven years since March 18, 2010. This grandfather clause might have been useful when BLPPRODs were first enacted, but seven years later it might not be useful anymore. Is it time to remove the grandfather clause from BLPPROD? -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support If a WP:BLP has been unreferenced for seven years, that's a major problem and should be taken care of by any means possible, BLPPROD being perhaps the most useful. I'll also note that Category:All unreferenced BLPs show the oldest tagged BLP is from December 2014, so it's not like we have a major backlog that would inundate the system. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Fine by me. Not sure how much difference it'll make in dealing with unreffed BLPs (if the oldest tagged one is from 2014) but I'm in favor of removing unnecessary instructions. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree. But this needs to be done via an RfC, probably at VPP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I can slap an RfC tag on this and reference this discussion at VPP. I doubt that's necessary though. At this point, it's just cleaning up an outdated restriction that isn't restricting anything. WP:NOTBURO, etc. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Alright, there's been objection so I've done just that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It's very unlikely that any significant numbers of unreferenced BLPs have been sitting around for seven years. There was a point at the end of 2011 where there weren't any unreferenced BLPs at all (apart from some in the deletion process). Any unreferenced BLP from before 2010 either wasn't recognised as an unreferenced BLP until much later or did formerly cite references (perhaps somebody removed them or the reference was some link which has gone dead since). Hut 8.5 18:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - As Hut 8.5 said, this isn't likely to actually apply to many articles, since all older BLPs that were tagged as unsourced were cleaned up or deleted. If any old unsourced BLPs are discovered that were never tagged as unsourced, they can easily be handled by the normal deletion processes. This seems like a proposal that solves no problem, and thus not something that should be changed. I also feel that the policy shouldn't be changed lightly as it was the result of a compromise following long and contentious discussions involving many participants . . . even if that clause is no longer relevant, it would seem inappropriate to change it based on the decision of just a few people. Calathan (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

It's simple problem that will be fixed: instead of 7 steps before nominating a BLPPROD, they're only be 6. It makes it simpler for all parties involved. Is there a reason why BLPPRODs before March 2010 (do any exist??) is still such a problem they need to be excluded from this process? -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

BLPPROD is supposed to only be used on articles with no sources provided, and not on articles which previously had sources but those sources were removed. You still need to look through the article history either way, so there really isn't any extra work to check when the article was created. Calathan (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

But if the grandfather clause is removed, there'd be no reason to focus on the date, just the diffs. The process is still simplified. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. A while back, a semi-well-intentioned project essentially eliminated unsourced BLPs by the unfortunate expedient of often adding a trivial source or two to every such article. While many BLPs may carry a BLP-unsourced template, those templates typically apply to a section of the article, not the overall bio. Besides, one of the central purposes of the BLPPROD process was not to delete articles, but to encourage their creators to bring them into compliance with sourcing requirements. That purpose is lost if we start tagging articles created seven or more years ago, where the article creators are very frequently inactive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Seems sensible. We have a BLP policy for a reason; we shouldn't have BLPs that have been completely unsourced for this long. If it is indeed the case that we don't have any created before this date - as alluded to above - then that's also a reason to support because there's no longer a need for this clause to be present. Additionally, the fact that the users who wrote these articles might be inactive is no reason to leave unsourced, potentially libelous, material to remain on the encyclopedia. Sam Walton (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support HW's argument seems to make no sense to me, I suspect that I've misunderstood HW's argument, or that HW has misunderstood the proposal here. It doesn't really matter which, but let me attempt to clarify. HW states that the project (no doubt, WP:URBLPR), "add[ed] a trivial source or two to every such article". if that's the case, then every such article is ineligible for BLPPROD with or without the grandfather clause, because even trivial, unreliable sources preclude BLPPRODs. In my view, the clause is needless at this point, and I support simplification. --joe decker^talk 20:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support per joe decker and others: If they exist as unreferenced entirely, they have to go regardless of how old they were. If there's a source, they are already ineligible for BLPPROD. The grandfather cause, when added, was an expedient at the time to reduce the scope of the problem so we could manage it. Several years on, and things having been settled down, it has outlived its need. --Jayron32 20:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I just want to comment that the grandfather clause was not introduced at the time as an expedient, but as a compromise between two sides, one of which wanted to promptly delete all of the unsourced BLPs and the other of which wanted to try to add sources to all of the unsourced BLPs. The compromise was that the side in favor of sourcing the BLPs would be allowed to try to source all of the ones that existed at that time, but any new ones created would be subject to BLPPROD and could be deleted. Calathan (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• As stated Oppose, because it seems if it were removed then all the pages that the editors wanted to remove before the compromise could be swept up and deleted, which would tear up the agreed-upon compromise. Kind of like the Indian treaties in the US, agree to them and then later ignore them. I wasn't in those discussions, so I'm reacting to what it sounds like occurred. Randy Kryn 22:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: The backlog at Category:All unreferenced BLPs is at December 2014 at the earliest, so there aren't (m)any unreferenced BLP's before March 2010. Also, it's not a matter of trying to remove pages, it's a matter of making sure our WP:BLPs are referenced. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Randy Kryn 22:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Note that the last time I looked, most of those weren't eligible for BLPPROD, people feel comfortable putting a {{BLP unreferenced}} on, say, American football players with a link their NFL profile, and I personally wish they wouldn't, but those articles aren't BLPPROD eligible in any case. --joe decker^talk 00:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are various ways in which we find ancient unreferenced BLPs, there could still be some not yet identified. There may well be some as people remove deadlinks or poor quality sources. I'm not convinced that such articles should be treated as new BLPs, especially as the authors may be long long gone. ϢereSpielChequers 23:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Seems to me such cases wouldn't be eligible anyway? As it is, you can't go into even a new entry, delete an unreliable reference, and then BLPPROD it because it now has no references. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support: simplify the wording of much-used procedure. PamD 23:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support per my above comment. This seems to be commonsense at this point. I can understand why the grandfather clause was put in at the time, but seriously, seven years is long enough. If it's a BLP and it has no sources then it's time for it to go. For the record I don't think we should allow any articles on Wikipedia that don't cite at least one reliable source. It undermines our credibility when we call ourselves an encyclopedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support That date is fairly meaningless now. It seems like there are generally around 100 BLPProdded articles in the to be deleted pile at any time. I hope that no one uses this change to tag hundreds or thousands of old, forgotten, pages at once. Should there be a note that any use of this tag for bulk tagging should be discussed first?

In reply to Ad Orientem's comments, our credibility as an encyclopedia is affected by the accuracy of our information, not by the presence of or lack of reliable sources. As a policy, I agree entirely about the need for sources, but unreferenced but correct articles are not harming our credibility at all. It's the incorrect articles, referenced or not, that undermines what we are trying to do. That type thinking was got us to this template in the first place. Some (admins) saw unreferenced articles as inherently evil and wrong, and wanted them all gone. The rest of us saw them as a work in progress. The-Pope (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

A hundred articles there has been more or less constant over the years, your comment here suggested I just go, y'know look through them, so I did. I might have missed a few, but tried to go through them all) all but 3 or four were created in 2017, all but one were created since 2016, and the one remaining case was from late 2010, still (barely) after the cutoff date. In the case of the 2010 article and one of the 2016 articles, there had been a ref when the article was first created, and that reference still worked today, so I put the reference back and and declined both BLPPRODs. The 2010 article had been sourced until last October. The date cutoff won't change anything in that pile, and unrefed bios apparently get caught quickly these days. If there is a problem (and I don't know about this), it's more likely to be about whether patrolling admins peek at the history for references that might have been removed. --joe decker^talk 07:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The-Pope When someone goes to an encyclopedia for information, they generally expect one of two things. Either that anything other than obviously non-controversial claims will be cited to reliable sources, or if sources are not cited, then the article will have been subject to rigorous review by one or more editors and fact checked before being published. In the absence of one or a combination of these policies how does anyone coming here know what is entirely truthful, what is is complete BS or what falls somewhere in between? So yes, our failure to insist on citations does damage our credibility as an encyclopedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Real professional encyclopedias don't make the biographies more equal than other types of articles; if it's a big reliability problem that a pre-2010 bio has no sources, it's just as big of a reliability problem that a pre-2010 article on another subject has no sources. If you support this proposal, would you also support having a process whereby we tag a ten-year-old article on a chemistry topic for deletion because it has no sources, and whereby that tag cannot be removed unless sources are provided? If so, I might agree with you or I might disagree with you on WP:DEADLINE grounds, but if not, there's no reason to listen to your support for this proposal. Nyttend (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not a question of making article type 1 more important than article type 2. It's a question of recognizing that (articles about) living people are more important than (articles about) things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I do not see that as a remotly valid arguement for leaving unsourced BLPs. It is, however, a great arguement for a sticky PROD for all articles. I can see no good reasons at all for Wikipedia, as a now mature project, allowing any unsourced article since by definition it is either plagerism or original research - both of which we do not allow. Jbh ^Talk 21:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, you overstate things ("New Insect is a brown beetle was discovered in 2015" would be neither plagiarism nor OR, assuming that the information was published somewhere), but I've got no particular objection to a sticky PROD for unsourced articles, especially articles about people, businesses, or products. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Enough time has passed. I can't say I've seen a case yet where when a policy or guideline changes that previous content gets grandfathered in. Instead, that content is updated as appropriate. At this point in time, I don't see any benefit to such a clause. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support just because an article is old does not mean it should get a pass on BLP. I assume the grandfather clause was to avoid a rash of BLPPRODS immediately following the creation of that deletion criterion. It has now been nearly seven years and it no longer serves that purpose. Jbh ^Talk 03:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support because the backlog has been cleared, so this bit of bureacracy is no longer necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support per WhatamIdoing. Jclemens (talk) 02:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. About time, we probably should have done this five years ago. Thanks for bringing this to RFC. Risker (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support It's past time to remove this exemption, and I don't see the presumably small number of affected blps being a valid argument against removing the exemption. Simplify the process and the templates and be done with it. By the way, I'm certain that I did notice a blp that fell under this exemption in the last year (and no I can't link to it). Meters (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support – What's the point of it now? It's useless now and the grandfather clause favours some articles. If this guideline (of unreferenced BLPs being PRODed) gets overturned then Wikipedia would get far less safe. I can see why it was useful in the early days though. J947 02:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support This made perfect sense at the time, but is not needed anymore. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support Enough time has passed to clear the backlog. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 20:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support simplifies policy rationally. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support – BLP policy has been well refined and stood the test of time; it should be uniformly applied even to legacy articles. A good opportunity for a cleanup, really. — JFG ^talk 19:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support these could be dealt with by a regular PROD now for other reasons to likely the same result, but I also don't see a reason to have the grandfather clause in. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Since the backlog has been near-eliminated at least once since the introduction of BLP PROD, this clause is unnecessary. — Train2104 (t • c) 21:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support I agree with Nyttend that it's time for mass deletion. Every unsourced stub on wiki is preventing a real editor from earning a four award. If the subject were important it should have been done right. At least this project recognizes that living people might sue. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Axios! This has been a source of perennial irritation for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support as it will simplify things. However mass tagging for deletion would be considered disruptive, and I would expect a search for sources before a BLPPROD tag is added. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support concept, but strongly oppose mass-deletion on short notice: To avoid flooding the system and risking mass-deletions, we need to have a transition period: For the first year, "ancient" BLPs will have a 90-day grace period instead of a 7-day grace period. Remember, editors who created pages years ago may be semi-retired and only log into Wikipedia sporadically. A 90-day grace period makes it much more likely that they will see the notice on their talk page in time to add a reference to the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:18, 18 March 2017 (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.

Technical changes to implement removal of grandfather clause

Just a note to say I've put a request on the Twinkle talk page for an update to reflect the removal of the grandfather clause, as previously-grandfathered pages (e.g. Matt_Miller_(quarterback)) still trigger a warning on Twinkle: "It appears that this article was created before March 18, 2010, and is thus ineligible for a BLP PROD. Please make sure that this is not the case, or use normal PROD instead." If anyone's aware of other automated processes that this might affect as well (AWB? I don't use it so I don't know), or a different place where this request is better directed, pls do say so! Innisfree987 (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

What about Page Curation? Adam9007 (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Good call Adam9007. You don't by chance have an example we could post over there for them, do you? I've only just rejoined NPR about three hours ago (I hadn't applied since the PERM was enacted so I stopped using it), so I'm still refreshing my recollection of how PC works, and the "Curate this page" option under Tools isn't coming up for me for the Matt Miller entry (but that could just be my forgetting how to access it--even if it's already been reviewed, I would've thought I had an option to unreview it...) Innisfree987 (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't normally use Page Curation (I prefer Twinkle), but I think Page Curation only appears for new pages, though I could be wrong. I'm afraid I don't have an example. The example you give has a (albeit poorly) sourced version in the history, so we need another. Adam9007 (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for catching that--yes, I almost added, I'm not actually suggesting we delete this entry, as I haven't finished WP:BEFORE, was just using it to test the Twinkle function on an older entry.

But meanwhile yes it's probably true that few if any entries this old are in the New Pages feed, especially since in the period the grandfather clause applied to, entries dropped off the feed after 30 days whether or not they'd been reviewed. I did think there was some way to unreview pages, which might put some very old BLPs back in the feed, but, as I can't find it at the moment, I suppose I'll just leave it be until I happen across such a thing. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up, Innisfree. I've never attempted to BLPPROD a pre-2010 article, so I didn't even know that warning existed! -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks MusikAnimal for the Twinkle update! Innisfree987 (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Note that the article mentioned as an example (Matt_Miller_(quarterback)) at one time had a valid reference, but that reference was removed without explanation.[1] It shouldn't be subject to BLPPROD. I suspect this is going to be true of many articles that are currently tagged as unreferenced BLPs; I saw quite a few when I spotchecked before commenting above. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please see the discussion just above: I think we're all in agreement that if an entry previously had a source, it's not BLPPROD eligible. (And I appended my Twinkle request noting this entry was just an example of the Twinkle grandfather clause warning, and was ineligible for BLPPROD for different reasons.) Innisfree987 (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I have re-added the removed reference in Special:Diff/771716341, in case if that helps. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 02:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

BLPPROD may be used on BLP pages outside article space

WP:BLP applies to all namespaces, not just to articles in mainspace. I think so should BLPPROD. The page reads silently on that, to my reading. The previous discussion almost 3 years ago, Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion_of_biographies_of_living_people/Archive_6#BLP_PROD_application_outside_of_article_space, I read as very unsatisfying as conclusive.

Something that has changed since 2014 is that abandoned BLPs in draftspace have accumulated considerably. Currently, these come to MfD where collectively they are SNOW deleted. I propose the following:

(a) BLPPROD may be used on BLP pages in draftspace, if the page has no non-minor edits for six months.

(b) BLPPROD may be used on BLP pages in userspace, if the page has no non-minor edits for six months, and the user is inactive for more than six months. Withdrawn --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Pinging User:TParis, the proponent of the previous RFC, User:Thryduulf, leading opponent in that RfC, and User:Bellerophon, the RfC closer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• This seems to be entirely duplicative of WP:CSD#G13 which allows drafts (of all subjects, not just BLPs) to be deleted after being abandoned for 6 months. All drafts can be edited to remove BLP problems or speedy deleted under criterion WP:CSD#G10 if it's an attack page that serves no other purpose. I don't understand therefore how this will reduce the workload at MfD? No other reason is given so it seems rather unnecessary. Even if this would someone solve the problem it seeks to, criterion (b) is written far too broadly and I strongly oppose extending prod to any page that is not clearly (perhaps even explicitly) a draft article. The six-month limit does significantly address the issues of bitiness brought up in 2014, but the lack of visibility remains a problem and this proposal makes no attempt to resolve them. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thryduulf, perhaps if you spent more time at MfD? You might see the burden of busywork of filtering poor nominations from SNOW deletions. G13 does not cover the pages not carrying an AfC banner. G13 could be expanded, but that is not happening now. Few abandoned BLPs are G10. Mostly they are G11. This BLPPROD of abandonded drafts will cover vanity drafts for example. Approve this, and BLPPROD will nicely match up with an expanded G13. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm not disputing this problem exists, I'm disputing that this proposal will solve the problem. If drafts meet speedy deletion criterion G11 (or any other speedy deletion criterion) they should be deleted as such, not sent to clog up MfD. Are there really that many pages that are all of (a) an abandoned draft article, (b) not tagged for AfC, (c) unsourced BLPs, (d) not speedy deletable under G10, G11, or any other speedy deletion criterion, (e) not fixable by simple editing? A page would have to be all of these for your proposal to apply. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
      • (a), (b), (c), (d): Yes. There are many such pages.
        (e) I personally advocate page blanking as sufficient for abandoned pages that don't meet a speedy criterion. Blanking is sufficient for a mere WP:NOT violation. However, many don't agree, they really want pages that name private people hidden from non-admins. Similarly with borderline notable borderline promotional articles, many argue well that they should be deleted. Their arguments are not easily rebuffed, my main argument being that MfD is more work than the size of the problem. I think BLPPROD is the solution.
        Also important is the incongruence that BLPPROD should not be able to apply to something that could be deleted per G13. If it is G13-able, being an unsourced BLP should make it easier, should make it harder to be routinely postponed as can be done on the general G13 case. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
        • Except that it doesn't prevent it being repeatedly postponed as all anyone needs to do is make a small but non-minor edit once every 5¾ months. This proposal cannot make any changes to the operation of G13 - if you want it to be easier to delete something under that criterion then you need to make a proposal at WT:CSD. If something is a BLP violation then it should be removed from the article immediately it is discovered, if it is not a BLP violation then there is no harm in leaving it. Revision deletion can also be used where appropriate. If you or anyone else wants to change the consensus on what is considered a BLP violation and what action should be taken against such violations then you need to make a specific proposal about it. I'm not against the concept of extending PROD to article drafts, but I don't see that this specific proposal as currently written will solve the problems you have identified. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• @Floquenbeam, Joe Decker, Hut 8.5, Graeme Bartlett, Unscintillating, Cyclopia, Chris troutman, Davidwr, and ϢereSpielChequers: the other users who commented in the 2014 RfC. Thryduulf (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC). @WereSpielChequers: ping with latin W not coptic Ϣ. Thryduulf (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• I obviously support extending BLPPROD to draftspace. But SmokeyJoe's proposal duplicated CSD G13. If an AFC proposer proposes an article, then after 6 months of inactivity, the article also will be 6 months old and qualifies as CSD G13. I feel we should just extend BLPPROD to draftspace and be done with it. Unreferenced BLPs should be nuked no matter what namespace if no work is actively being done to rectify the situation.--v/r - TP 23:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It uses similar language to G13, but G13 doesn't apply to draftspace or userspace pages without AfC banners. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
    • The meat of my opinion is the last sentence.--v/r - TP 22:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
      • "Unreferenced BLPs should be nuked no matter what namespace if no work is actively being done to rectify the situation". That was my intent with the proposal, where "nuke" doesn't mean list (advertise) at MfD, but an objective, routine deletion process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support proposal As suggested, there's consensus for WP:BLP to apply everywhere. We already have an automated mechanism to clean out old drafts. I support expanding BLPPROD to cover userspace drafts so we have a mechanism beyond MfD. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support [Comments based on my misperception have been removed here.] --joe decker^talk 16:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose clause b unless it is restricted to pages that are unambiguously intended as article drafts. I still have my concerns regarding the rest of the proposal (see above) but this is not something that can be compromised on. Thryduulf (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose b per Thryduulf. As written this is likely to be used on user pages which contain biographical information which isn't intended as an article draft. For instance Chris Troutman's user page says he's 35 and has a BA in History, without citing references. That's not the sort of thing that should lead to deletion. Hut 8.5 18:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose As BLPPROD is already very difficult to understand, I think we should endeavor to avoid further complicating the instructions unless it really accomplishes something, and I'm not sure it would here. I just went through and read all of the open MfD'ed drafts (a limited sample but as I'm not an admin, I can't see deleted pages to read further back) and none were even close to meeting either of the proposed criteria. I appreciate the desire to triage MfD but I think this will wind up being used that way very little (few drafts will meet the proposed criteria but not G13; few editors will understand/want to go to the bother of checking for all the criteria) and the main effect will be instruction creep, further reducing BLPPROD's usefulness. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Another data point. For an alternative metric, I just went and checked 100 biographies in draftspace: I only found one unreferenced BLP that was old enough, but it met the G13 criteria. I didn't find any that qualified for this proposal but not CSD. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Innisfree987, I just checked twenty. I found one G11, and three (15%) that would fit this proposal: 1, 2, 3. I really do not think that it is in any good interest to list these at MfD. While a lot more of draftspace is Wikipedia:Reference bombed than unreferenced, there are still a lots of unreferenced BLPs there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Ay, I'm afraid this confirms my concerns about difficulty in using this process correctly (with the end result being it's used very little) as well as my sense there are few drafts it would help keep out of MfD: AFAICT, 1 is G13-eligible even if it's not marked as such, while 2 and 3 do not meet the proposed criteria, having been edited within the last six months. So between us we're 0 for 120 in finding a bio this proposal would help address. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Innisfree987, (1) is something, because I think I read that the G13 bot is not working. Is your position that we should ensure G13 deletions happen? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: I don't really have a position on G13, I see both sides, but as long as we have G13, it's a much more straightforward process than BLPPROD. Even if the bot is down, you can simply tag G13 yourself if you happen on one that's eligible, which is how one would find BLPPROD-eligible pages. And we still haven't found any that would be eligible for this new BLPPROD criteria but not G13. I really don't think further complicating the BLPPROD instructions in this way will accomplish what we'd hope for at MfD. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I take your point about complicating already complicated instructions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support "A", Oppose "B" as written. "B" should exclude biographical information about the account creator, unless it is unambiguously intended as an article draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahecht (talk • contribs) 23:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• If no one objects, I withdraw clause (b). In hindsight, it should not have been included. The bigger issue to abandoned, un-owned pages in draftspace. In userspace, at least the old BLPs were created by a registered user who nominally holds some responsibility for the page, and there is a valid point raised above of the language being misconstrued to include pages with information on the user whose userspace it is.
  I do still think clause (a) is needed. It is very similar to the wording of G13, but G13 deletions are not proceeding like clockwork, and these old BLPs are the worst cases not covered by any CSD criterion. If there are not currently many cases at MfD, it would be in large part due to my pushback against people listing them.
  User:Thryduulf points out that any user may still repeatedly postpone. That is not an issue. If a user is repeatedly postponing, the page is not abandoned. If there is an issue involving any activity, the page should go to MfD. The problem is MfD would be swamped if all abandoned pages were to go to MfD.
  I think is incongruent, absurd, that a page may be deleted due to being abandoned draftspace, but may not be deleted due to being an abandoned BLP in draftspace.
  NB. This is not about BLP "violations". Checking old abandoned BLPs for violations is a big job and not worth doing. Identifying old BLP violations would do more harm, Streisand effect. Old abandoned BLPs in draftspace are best quietly deleting by the BLPPROD process on the judgement of any single editor.
  I do not think that normal PROD should be extended to draftspace. Instead, there is a proposal at WT:Drafts for two NPP qualified reviewers in agreement to be able to have a draft deleted, regardless of age. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as a solution to a non-significant problem. I would certainly oppose option B even more, as that would affect user pages. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • User:Graeme Bartlett, in a quick search of draftspace for titles containing common given names, I found 15% were unreferenced BLPs. I could blank them, is that the alternative you propose. Or leave them hidden in their obscurity (none have non-zero pageview stats). No CSD applies. If you think they should be listed at MfD, I think you are mistaken because that only draws attention to personal data that should have never been written. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Partial oppose, recommend substitute:

• Oppose in WP:AFC-tagged draft articles (which philosophically includes Articles for Creation submissions in the User: namespace) as unecessary WP:Bureaucracy because 1) draft articles and articles flagged as "AFC" are not indexed and 2) most of them will eventually be either get a non-minor edit or they will be deleted under {{db-g13}}/deletion of an abandoned draft article and 3) The scope of the "problem" of pages that somehow linger on way too long + the "harm" of leaving them up is not big enough to warrant changing the existing practice. If there are such pages that are causing real harm which requires them to be deleted before they become db-g13-eligible, delete them through MfD or another applicable criteria (e.g. {{db-attack}}, etc.).
• Recommend a formal way to encourage "starting the db-g13 clock" on pages in Draft: namespace which do not have the WP:AFC tag. Currently, any editor can slap the AFC templates on pages in the Draft: namespace, but doing so is subject to "push-back" from content editors who may not be "ready" to start that clock running. Perhaps with Biographies, we should say "pages that appear to be draft biography articles will be db-g13 eligible even if they have not been submitted as "articles for creation." Note that under db-g13, a minor edit that is not a bot edit restarts the clock, so my proposal here is not the same as SmokeyJoe's proposal above. You know, strike all of that, if there is an editor who would "push back" against putting an AFC template on the page, then that's reason enough to not use any "no-discussion" form of deletion.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Clarification request for @Thryduulf and SmokeyJoe: WP:CSD#G13 says This applies to rejected or unsubmitted Articles for creation pages that have not been edited in over six months (excluding bot edits). This criterion applies to draft articles in the draft namespace or userspace that are using the project's {{AFC submission}} template. How do each of you envision this proposal affecting pages in the Draft: namespace that do not include the AFC submisison template? How do you envision this proposal affecting pages that have received non-minor bot edits (SmokeyJoe's proposal appears to "count" this as a non-minor edit and restart the clock, while CSD#G13 does not). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • In all cases, if this proposal is enacted as currently written the only pages that will be eligible are drafts of BLP articles in draftspace that have had no non-minor edits for six months. Whether the non-minor edit was made by a bot or a human does not matter. Whether the BLP has an AFC banner or not does not matter. The clause about userspace has been withdrawn from the proposal completely. In practice this means that only (a) draft BLPs (b) in draftspace (c) without a banner and (d) with no no-minor edits for six months will ever be eligible for this process but not G13. Any other page will either be ineligible for both, eligible for G13 at the same time or eligible for G13 sooner than this. That is going to be a very small number of pages. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • User:davidwr, while Thryduulf is right, my response is:
    The proposal envisions BLPPROD applying to any abandoned BLP in draftspace, regardless of: (a) AfC and its banners; (b) any ongoing functionality of G13 and G13-based processes.
    Non-minor bot edits will treated the same as non-minor user edits, any issue here I think should be directed at the bot owner and their decision on marking edits as minor. I didn't consider this an important issue. The idea was that a quick look at the edit history will tell you if there have been non-minor edits. The blurred line between bots edits and semi-automated editing is not something a BLPPROD tagger should need to fathom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

More general responses

• Several people have a major issue with overlap with G13. I have thought through this, and think it is to be acknowledged, but is not a reason for objection. This is not a proposal for a new CSD that has to pass the new CSD criteria including "frequent" and "non-redundant". It is, however, objective and uncontestable, which is perhaps why people are reacting by assessing it though the four new CSD criteria at the top of WT:CSD. It is not a new CSD seeking to delete a whole lot of pages that previously and otherwise are not deleted. Instead, it sought to remove BLP incongruity, and to align BLPPROD with G13. If G13 can delete a 6 month old BLP, why can't BLPPROD? It is a major incongurity: BLP is site wide policy, BLPPROD is an important process of WP:BLP, yet BLPPROD is excluded from addressing a pool of unwatched BLPs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• 6 month time delay. For G13, any abandoned draft, 6 months is a very short time. Pages become eligible at 6 months, and in practice are not deleted until later, and currently their lifetime is much longer. For BLPPROD, 6 months is very very long. I introduced 6 months thinking it extremely conservative, incapable of raising objection. Is this the problem? Too conservative. Howabout remove it altogether? Thus:

(c) BLPPROD may be used on BLP pages in draftspace.

Even on the first day. Even if in draftspace, if someone objects to your BLP on the basis that it is an unsourced BLP, you have seven days to add a source or it will be deleted. This comes from the essence of WP:BLP. This responds to User:Innisfree987 valid point of complexity. BLPPROD should be a simpler way to deal with unsourced BLPs than nominating at AfD or MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I do agree and appreciate that this would be simpler, but it would also be a dramatic change to AfC (and thus, to a huge number of new editors' first interactions with the community), and even to what "no deadlines" means (I'm not a "no deadlines" absolutist, but I do think we should acknowledge allowing a brand-new draft to be BLPPROD'ed from Day 1 would radically change where we draw the line on allowing editors to have a work in progress). I suggest taking this to the Village Pump as I think the BLPPROD talk page is not sufficient to get true community input on such a major change. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure. An emerging consensus here should be followed by more advertising of the proposal. "Would be a dramatic change to AfC" is not really a hurdle. Note Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#Should_the_AfC_process_be_scrapped_altogether_.28while_retaining_the_draft_namespace.29.3F closed with "Overall, there is no consensus at this time to abolish AfC as a process". That's very weak support on the basis of weakness of alternatives. AfC is not working well. At best, with non-negligible costs, it keeps a lot of crap out of mainspace. Something needs to change. There is a push (including by me) for WP:NPP permission (congratulations on your recent approval) to be required to be an AfC reviewer, and for reviewers to take more responsibility for the deletion of unacceptable drafts. WP:BLPPROD is an obvious process for that. G13 is not the way forward. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• That's a really bad idea. The whole point of draftspace is that people can work on content that isn't up to the imminent deletion standards of mainspace. If a newbie creates an article that might potentially be encyclopedic but clearly isn't up to scratch, we tell them to go to draft space and work on it there until it's suitable for mainspace. Applying this type of standard as soon as the article is created would completely defeat this. (Granted, we do sometimes delete drafts immediately after creation, but for very few reasons and not for ones which boil down to the article being underdeveloped.) Yes, this is simpler, but simpler doesn't always equal better - "delete all drafts" is even simpler. I'm not saying that you can't have BLP PROD in draftspace, but you do have to have some kind of G13-like delay built into it for it to make any sense. Hut 8.5 07:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Nope. What's a really bad idea is any notion that anyone may start creating any article, let alone a BLP, without even a single source. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    • We're talking about drafts, not articles. We may well be talking about new editors who don't know much about our standards. We may well be talking about experienced editors who do have references available but who don't put them in with the very first edit when writing a draft. The whole point of drafts is allowing people some freedom to work without the fix-it-now-or-it-gets-deleted pressure of mainspace. Drafts are vastly less visible than articles and if one does contain an actual BLP violation there are already mechanisms to get rid of it. Hut 8.5 21:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Does WP:BLP apply less to drafts than to articles? You are essentially arguing that it should apply more weakly? Drafts may be less visibile, but they are visible, are vastly unwatched, not properly reviewed, and they persist. What mechanisms do you refer to?
        • CSG#G10? That is pretty extreme, most BLP issues, unsourced coverage for example, don't rise to G10.
        • CSD#G11? Covers many, but applying G11 liberally to everything not looking suitable is a serious loosening what the obectiveness supposedly required of CSD criteria.
        • G13? Long delay, not working in practice, under re-examination
        • MFD? Not intended for non-contentious cases in large numbers, and undesriable due to the Streisand effect
        • Blank? If the consensus here is that unsourced BLPs in draftspace should be blanked, I am happy with that.

The advantage of BLPPROD is exactly the same as BLPPROD in mainspace. Seven days are more than sufficient to find the one source. It is a quiet process, while being easily reviewed. It sets a higher bar for topics that could do unexpected harm.

Draftspace desperately needs more efficient clearance mechanisms. This seemed like the easiest of mechanisms, because everyone agrees WP:BLP is important everywhere. These pages are always SNOW deleted at MfD. Why the resistance? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely, BLP applies to drafts. If you see a BLP violation in draft space you have every right to remove it. If that isn't possible or the situation is sufficiently serious then you can invoke WP:BLPDELETE just as you would for an article. However we're talking about BLP PROD, which isn't the same thing at all. BLP PROD only applies to a very small subset of the scope of BLP, and it simply wouldn't make sense to apply it everywhere. (As I pointed out above it would be rather silly to apply it to userspace.) Yes, the process has a seven day waiting period, but so do WP:PROD, WP:AFD and basically any other deletion process. As I've said before the reason why people use draftspace is so they can write things without someone holding a gun to their head. If that ceases to be the case then there's little reason to have draftspace at all.
If you want to clear up draft space then there are much more efficient mechanisms than this. Most drafts aren't unsourced BLPs and won't be covered by this at all. And this suggested process won't be any less efficient if you stick a six month timer on it. I'm sure there is plenty of support at MfD for deleting old drafts that won't make viable articles and which aren't being worked on, but what you're suggesting would allow someone to delete a draft while someone is actively working on it, and that's a different issue entirely. Hut 8.5 22:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Is unsourced material about a living person a BLP violation? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily, no. The rationale for having BLP PROD is that unsourced BLPs are felt to be more likely to have BLP violations in them. Hut 8.5 18:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess that's our difference. I think an unsourced BLP is always in violation of WP:BLP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction in description

The lead of the page says (emphasis added by me):

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.

And then in the very next sentence:

...the BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement...

Anybody see the contradiction? The BLPPROD tag is for articles with zero sources, reliable or not — but it can be removed only when a reliable source is added? What if an unreliable source is added? Then the article no longer has zero sources and would be ineligible for a BLPPROD tag according to the first sentence. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The article must have no sources at all to be eligible, but is still eligible if an unreliable source is added after the tagging. The second paragraph explains it clearly:

A common source of confusion in application is the different treatment of presence of sources for placement of the tag, versus removal of the tag. The requirements can be summed up as: Only add a BLPPROD if there are no sources in any form that name the subject, but once (properly) placed, it can only be removed if a reliable source is added. This compromise avoids the need for judgement calls about reliability of sources for placement, and limits that issue to the far fewer instances, at the other end, where a source is actually added during the seven-day period.

You may also want to read my essay on the subject. Adam9007 (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

That's utterly ridiculous. A tag on an article shouldn't depend on a past state that no longer exists. I can't think of any other tag with that attribute. The closest I can think of is the {{coi}} tag, but even that can be removed if the article no longer shows COI edits. An article is ineligible for BLPPROD if there are sources, and if there are sources, the tag shouldn't be there.

So it's conceivable to take a vanity bio with one external link, remove that link, slap on a BLPPROD tag, and then add back the link? That's just wrong, man.

I have to ask, would someone please provide a valid rationale how this sorry state of affairs came about, and why it is necessary? ~Anachronist (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I think Kudpung would be a good person to ask. Adam9007 (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

As a point of clarification: as far as I understand it, no, a BLP that previously had one external link would not be eligible for BLPPROD in the first place--you can't just delete a bad link and then BLPPROD it. At that point you have to use regular PROD (or AfD, etc.) This is just for entries that have never had any sources (meaning you have to check the history to make sure no one's deleted dead links, etc.) Innisfree987 (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC) (...none of which I say in defense of the tag, which I often daydream about abolishing altogether. If the procedure's too convoluted for an admin with more than a decade of WP experience to grasp in full on first reading, how can we possibly expect new editors--the most likely to put up an unsourced article--to understand what's being asked of them? But perhaps others can better explain its value. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC) )

For more explanation, perhaps also see the hatnote at the very top of this page that begins "A perennial discussion at this page relates to the dichotomy of having two different sourcing tests" and links to some of those debates. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see that, thanks. The debates still don't explain why a 'compromise' resulting in an inconsistent policy is preferable to a policy that can be applied with a consistent rule always. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• The current wording is a compromise: if you are a D-list actor with no sources in your article, you can't rescue it by putting IMDB on after the tag is placed, but the tag can't be placed if IMDB was ever in the article. Removing a IMDB and then placing the tag on would generally be considered bad form. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Categorization question

Is there a particular reason BLP PROD's are not placed in the "Proposed deletion as of <DATE>" categories? I assume this dates back to when BLP PROD was 10 days instead of 7. — Train2104 (t • c) 17:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

If there's no objection, I might go ahead and change this. Now that file and article PROD's are using the same category, and that entire category can be emptied at the end of the day, I don't see why BLP PROD has to be taken any differently. – Train2104 (t • c) 20:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks for taking the initiative! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 Implemented [2] – Train2104 (t • c) 23:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

What about twitter

let me lay on you Saharul Ridzwan. Only link is to his twitter account, which does name him. And has a very flattering picture, I might add.Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Articles with only IMDb references eligible 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.

Summary:-There is a strong consensus to oppose the proposal that articles with only references to Internet Movie Database be made eligible for WP:BLPPROD.

Rationale:-Allmost all the editors have supported working in the lines of the KISS principle.The argument that the quality of a source is best evaluated at an AfD and that there are several other venues available for getting rid of poorly sourced articles are strong enough.Some of the discussants seem to be considerate towards the enactment of such sticky prods in articles concerned with the corporation and business; which seems to attract a lot of spam.Winged Blades ^Godric 11:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

---

I propose that articles with only references to the Internet Movie Database should still be eligible for BLPPROD. Looking at SP:NPF, we've got a dead person with only an IMDb reference (Ken Parry), but a quick look doesn't show any living. However, even this month I have located some.

IMDb consists of user-generated content, which therefore poses risks that the person is a hoax or has information that is incorrect. IMDb is used as an external link in many articles, including quite a few that use it as an only source. IMDb is certainly not reliable, let alone good to be used as an only source. Those are reasons why I have placed this RfC up. If this gets accepted, then bot Twinkle and Page Curation should be notified. Additional options could include a short grandfather clause for current article affected, and an extended timeframe between the tagging and the deletion. J947^(c) 04:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

!vote

Support

1. Support as nominator. J947^(c) 04:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
2. Support. I've seen a lot of articles using IMDb as an only source throughout the year, including BLPs, and if those BLPs could go to BLPPROD it would be great because it would remove lots of unreferenced content from the encyclopedia. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 06:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
3. Support Doesn't go far enough, IMHO, but it would be a start. It would make thing more complex, but perhaps a template that mentions IMDb could be created to slightly reduce the confusion. Yeryry (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. As it is, BLPPROD is already too hard to understand. Changing one of the rules to "No sources means no sources--except IMDb" will only make the process that much more unusably complicated. I'd sooner change the eligibility bar to "no reliable sources" but I don't think that's likely to happen either. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

   Comment @Innisfree987: I actually think there's a chance it would happen if proposed. I frequently have to explain and defend myself when I remove BLPPROD tags that shouldn't have been placed because there was a source. It's clear to me that many people think BLPPROD means "no reliable sources". That's why I wrote an essay. Adam9007 (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

   I think you're completely right Adam9007 about how it's often interpreted--indeed that's the exact mistake I made when I first tried to use it. Even though I read the directions start to finish three times, it was just too confusing that there are two different sourcing standards, one for applying the tag and a different one for removing it. But that issue is biggest among people who don't usually use the process. My guess is that folks engaged enough with BLPPROD to participate in an RfC may have a different perspective on it, and different priorities. Can't hurt to ask though, if you or someone else wanted to! Innisfree987 (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

2. Oppose. BLPPROD is for unsourced articles, not poorly sourced articles, which can be subject to the standard PROD process. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
3. Oppose keep it as simple as possible, no sources saves time Atlantic306 (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Hullabaloo. The KISS principle applies, and there are few enough of these that modifying this process is inadvisable. Jclemens (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
5. If we were to broaden the concept of sticky prods we should keep it simple, but also keep it targeted at our biggest risks and problems. So if we were to broaden sticky prod it would be better to broaden it against corporations and spam. ϢereSpielChequers 10:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
6. Oppose The case of Ken Parry is not a significant problem. I have no trouble finding additional sources for that actor such as The Stage but many editors seem to struggle with such searches and so it would be disruptive to go tag bombing such cases rather than assisting. Note also that the actor in question is dead and so talk of BLP is in poor taste. Andrew D. (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
7. Oppose AfD works fine for non-notable people. WereSpeilChequers is right in that the most logical expansion would be for corps and spam. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
8. Oppose the policy needs to be kept clear and unambiguous. If we add this then the obvious question is why we don't allow other specific examples of unreliable sources as well (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc). This would result in either an unworkable enormous list of specific examples or a general statement which would be open to argument and misinterpretation. There are plenty of other processes available for getting rid of poorly sourced articles. Hut 8.5 18:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
9. Oppose—considering the difficulties at NPP, less ambiguity would seem to be a good thing. And, if the technique is to be considered, WereSpielChequers would seem to have it right. — Neonorange (Phil) 18:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
10. Oppose If we are talking about the initial tagging. (If we can remove the BLPProD for a link to twitter on initial tagging, then we should definitely remove for IMDB present on initial tagging.) Probably should not be considered RS for the purpose of removing tag if it were properly applied in the first place. The quality of the source is often best left to AfD.Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

• @J947: I was in the middle of writing a reply, when I found I wasn't sure what was being proposed... Is it:

1. Confirm that IMDb is not a reliable source, to prevent the removal of BLPPROD tags that were added prior to the addition of (only) an IMDb link.
2. Make an exception for the adding of the tag, so that BLP articles having only an IMDb link may be tagged

I'm guessing it's 2, and going by the votes, others seem to think so too, but it'd be good to make sure. Yeryry (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• 2. Reading below, 1 already is instated. J947^(c) 18:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

That's right, 1 is already policy. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, as I thought... In that case, why just IMDb... Why not include discogs.com, linkedin, amazon, social media, person's-own-web-site, and other unsuitable sources? Yeryry (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

think its simpler as it is otherwise the list of bad sources will grow and grow, there is always a normal prod for badly referenced pages Atlantic306 (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It would be ambiguous if it was all unreliable sources eligible, as there would be unnessasary discussions whether a references is reliable or not. IMDb is the main problem. Also, PRODs are based on notability and not referencing. J947^(c) 03:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

A number of prods are for poor referencing and can lead to improvement of the refs if there is a clear explanation in the prod rationale Atlantic306 (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Normal PROD is all but useless for newly created pages. AfD may work, but is rather overkill for things that should be easy enough to get rid of. BLPPROD is already pretty useless, so anything that lets it be used more is good.

To avoid the problem of which sources should be in the "bad" list, making it "any unreliable source" would actually make the whole thing less complex than it is now, as the criteria for tagging would then be the same as for removal. Yeryry (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Where it's unclear whether a source is unreliable or not , particularly non-English sources, would cause problems as a lot of sources are on the borderline with disagreements about whether a source is reliable or unreliable, apart from the obvious ones Atlantic306 (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2017 (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.

In other words

if we say, "John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960s" and put a citation for that fact, then we can say whatever we want in the rest of the article, and it won't be eligible for deletion under this rule. Mister Ernest Thayer (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It's true that BLPPROD couldn't be used in that scenario. (Whether we can say "whatever we want" is obviously governed by other policies.) But yes, at that point, a different deletion process would have to be used, as applicable: regular PROD, AfD, CSD, etc. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction - What exactly is the ineligibility bar?

This policy seems to contradict itself about at which point a BLP article becomes ineligible for this process. Some parts say 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, whereas elsewhere it says Only add a BLPPROD if there are no sources in any form that name the subject. Which is it, and what exactly does it mean? Adam9007 (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Ugh (to the inconsistency--good work Adam9007 for spotting it.) I'm just going to BOLDLY change this so both say "supporting any statements made about the person in the biography," as that's the standard I hear cited far more often. If anyone feels this is the wrong decision, please feel free to revert me and the group can have a discussion: I really am not wedded to a particular the outcome here, I just think it would be super if it got resolved without having to be an enormous timesink, if at all possible! Innisfree987 (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Innisfree987: Yeah, I had to do this after the hoo-ha on my talk page. Adam9007 (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the edit, that's the interpretation I've always made Atlantic306 (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Old BLPs (2004) and BLPProd?

What's our current practice of BLPPROD for old BLPs? 20004 creation, barely a stub, nothing contentious on an academic whose obvious publishing history is a clear pass for BLPN. However it's not easy or quick to find secondary sources on well-cited academics - if there are any, they're hidden behind the primary sources, and their citations (which aren't the type of secondary coverage we need).

I've just reverted a PROD on this - I can't see any way in which the encyclopedia is improved by such a deletion. But where does our policy stand on such? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• BLP PROD doesn't distinguish between different kinds of sources, as long as the source supports a statement in the article. So non-secondary sources such as the subject's academic website or papers written by the subject would mean the subject doesn't qualify for BLP PROD. Complete lack of third-party reliable sources would be a serious problem (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability), but that's the kind of thing that would be dealt with using regular PROD or AfD. Also there was a point in late 2011 where there were no articles tagged as unreferenced BLPs (aside from a few in the deletion process), so if this one is completely unreferenced then either it wasn't recognised as an unreferenced BLP back then or it used to have some sources which have been removed since. Hut 8.5 20:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• Warren White (oceanographer)

It doesn't seem to have hit the BLP radar until 2015. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Given that there was at least one reference in a previous revision (in fact, from the first version of the entry), this entry was never eligible for BLPPROD and you were definitely correct to remove it. Even if it had been without sources in all revisions, adding a primary source would still usually be enough to remove the BLPPROD (e.g. if the entry says he worked on X and you can reference a paper he wrote on X, that's a reliable source supporting a claim in the entry--it's ok if that that source is primary.) As for other deletion processes that might apply, I think the relevant policy would be WP:NACADEMIC; if I'm not mistaken, this special notability guideline exists pretty much exactly because of the issue you're describing re: secondary sources.

But in any case, no need to worry about secondary sources for the BLPPROD process specifically, just other processes like AfD, regular PROD (which you can still use on BLPs), etc. Hope that helps! Innisfree987 (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

That (his academia homepage) is too primary to really support it, IMHO. Plenty of stuff gets deleted with less.

I put some work in on it last night, but was still having trouble finding good secondaries on him personally. Someone today clearly disagreed anyway and re-prodded it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

His academia homepage, though deadlinked now, (since fixed!) at least confirmed his place of employment as stated in the entry, so definitely the page was ineligible for BLPPROD. Whether it should be deleted under a different process is probably a subject for the entry's talk page; I'll weigh in there, if I can get a handle on what the debate even is, I'm honestly confused by the blanking. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

There is such a rush to delete this article today: [3] [4] [5] that I'm wondering if I shouldn't just AfD it and leave them to it. Welcome to Wikipedia. Why do we do this again? 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I actually had the same thought about AfD, that there it would attract the attention of folks who deal with academic notability all the time and the matter'd be easily settled. But it looks like a good number of folks are weighing in at the talk page so hopefully it can be resolved that way... Yeesh! Innisfree987 (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Loopholes

I've boldly closed what I believe to be loopholes in the policy to make it consistent with the placement requirement as well as the removal requirement. I'm open to wording improvements and whatnot. Hopefully, this'll put an end to the confusion once and for all, but I still fear there's only one way to do that... Adam9007 (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support as sensible clarification of what is already established policy, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support, ditto, thank you. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
• @Adam9007: Can you give examples of the loopholes? What does the cryptic Hopefully, this'll put an end to the confusion once and for all, but I still fear there's only one way to do that... mean? Sam Sailor 18:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Sam Sailor: I'm not actually sure whether it's multiple loopholes, or one loophole scattered across the page :). But much of the policy didn't distinguish between a valid tag placement and an invalid one, and parts of it (especially the 'Objecting' section) could have given the impression that it doesn't matter whether a placement was valid or not. That distinction was really only made on the lead and the 'Nominating' section. Yes, in an ideal world, people will use common sense and take 'placement' to mean 'valid placement', but we're unfortunately not in an ideal world, and people do make invalid BLPPROD tag placements, whether that's through ignorance, or because they think they can loophole their way around the spirit of this policy. In fact, I think I once saw someone try to circumvent the placement requirement by claiming that unreliable sources don't qualify as supporting, despite this policy's context making it clear that (for BLPPROD's purposes) they do. As for the last bit, it means I fear even this won't help much in the long run, and the only way to really end the confusion will be to make the placement and removal requirements match each other. I'm fairly sure that has been proposed several times in the past. Adam9007 (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, I don’t even know if it’s loopholes so much as chronic misunderstandings leading to recurring, unnecessary friction. But any clarification that might to reduce that... Innisfree987 (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Innisfree987: Well, given what's happening at James Willcock, I fear there may well be another RfC on the matter, even though there was one not that long ago (well, I say I fear it, but I'm not actually afraid of an RfC itself, but rather the accusations of disruption because we keep having them and they always have the same result). Adam9007 (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Whew, yep, all of the above is just exactly the kind of disruption I’d love to avoid...! Innisfree987 (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Innisfree987: I think I can have a pretty good guess at what'll happen if this continues and/or it does go to another RfC: People will get fed up with them and it'll be speedily closed, or it'll go the same way as they always have and for the same reasons, and of course nothing ever changes. The placement requirement will still need to be explained over and over and over again and will even be treated as something that's just been made-up on the spot. Those enforcing it will be accused of violating WP:BLP and blocked or topic banned. And who will get the blame for causing disruption? (clue: it won't be the people knowingly and wilfully violating policy. I can tell you that for nothing! :)). Adam9007 (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources...or not?

I'm confused by this passage in the lede of this guideline:

Unsourced biographies of living people (BLPs) are eligible for a special proposed deletion process, BLPPROD. 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. Unlike standard proposed deletion, 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. If the biography remains unsourced after seven days, the biography may be deleted.

Soooo, the guideline says that ANY source, reliable or otherwise, means that the BLPPROD tag is not appropriate. But then it goes on to say that BLPPROD tag can only be removed if a reliable source is added.

I don't understand why an unreliable source is acceptable in the first place but then a reliable source is required to remove a BLPPROD tag. Can someone clear this up for me?

What I'm coming across are one sentence biographies with IMDb as a source. IMDb is considered to be an unreliable source but according to this guideline, it doesn't matter, BLPPROD is not valid. EXCEPT if there was no source at all and an editor added IMDb as a source, then that would be unacceptable. This seems uncharacteristically inconsistent for Wikipedia, especially for policy pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• It's a policy not a guideline so it's strange you are not aware of it ? Atlantic306 (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

  A thought: maybe rather than being strange, the fact that even Liz hadn't come across it 'til now indicates it's really not a very much used or needed tool (and so arguably more trouble than it's worth?) Innisfree987 (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, to be blunt, when I was writing this query, I wavered about calling BLPPROD a "guideline" or a "policy" and since I was in the edit mode/screen, I was lazy and didn't want to go back to the Wikipedia page to see which it was and lose my comment. So, I took a guess and called it a guideline. My bad for not checking and being more precise.

As for not being Wikipedia omnipotent, well that's just the way it is with us mortals. I've been editing for almost 6 years and I'm still learning new things every day. If you are expecting complete, comprehensive knowledge from admins, I know several very experienced admins (and also a few regular editors) who seem omnipotent to me but I think that even they might object to that implied level of perfection. You can find a few editors/admins with superior wiki knowledge putting in time at AfD and ANI. Those of us with "good enough but not perfect" knowledge are usually here, on policy talk pages, asking questions so we can be sure we act in line with Wikipedia policies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• It's a compromise, and there are various discussions about it in the archives. On the one hand people don't think BLP PROD is a good tool to use for evaluating poorly sourced articles as opposed to unsourced ones. Whether something is unsourced is unambiguous and easy to evaluate, whereas whether something is poorly sourced is subject to a lot of interpretation and therefore better suited to processes which allow discussion and objections. On the other hand people don't want unsourced BLPs to escape deletion because someone added an unreliable source, since that doesn't deal with the main problem. The difference in standards between adding a BLP PROD and removing it is intended to accommodate both of these. There have been proposals to allow BLP PROD of articles which contain a select list of common unreliable sources, such as IMDB, but they've been rejected on the grounds of keeping the policy simple. Hut 8.5 15:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• It’s not great in that it leads to this conversation over and over, a huge editor timesink and in a couple cases, editors even getting blocked over resulting disputes. I think we should get rid of it and just have regular PROD for everything (in addition to the abovementioned source quality issue, lots of people don’t understand they could use regular PROD on BLPs even though there’s also this thing called BLPPROD.) Anyone who brought a proposal to get rid of this option altogether would have my support. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Not sure, if there was no BLPPROD new page patrollers would most likely move unreferenced blps to draft for AFC but that could lead to abandoned drafts full of BLP violations lingering for 6 months before deletion by csd G13 Atlantic306 (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

    • That seems not so different from what already happens, if the BLP with vios is submitted through Article Wizard rather than directly to mainspace? If we are ok with that happening there, this doesn't seem particularly worse. Seems it'd actually be less of a problem for mainspace submissions, since at least the NPP reviewer has A7, PROD, AfD nomination available to them, none of which can be used if the potential BLP-violating entry arrive as a draft (or at least, so it was the last time I checked; I have not closely followed the effort to combine NPR and AFC.) The only mainspace BLPs that should be draftified are the ones patrollers turned up indicia of notability for--which is the kind of thing draftspace is intended to incubate. No?

All that said, I do wish we had some hard numbers on how often BLPPROD is actually used. It's not that I don't understand the intention, it's just that I only rarely see it used successfully (by which I mean any result--whether deletion or sourcing improvement--other than having to explain why the tag was improperly placed), while causing what seems to me to be a disproportionate amount of friction. But maybe the successful uses are just not in my line of sight, I don't often review other NPP patrollers' work. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I should have guessed that this wasn't an entirely new question. Seems like this will continue to be a bit of a contradiction. I'll say that I'm coming across these articles when I look at Database reports or Special Pages that list the shortest articles on Wikipedia. They are almost always just one sentence and many list either IMDb or some "Directory" (often with no page listed) as sources. I had hoped that these situations had some clear cut solution but I think I will just start using PROD rather than BLPPROD.

Thank you Hut 8.5, Innisfree987 and Atlantic306 for taking the time to respond to my question. Much appreciated! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

External links

Do they all count towards the placement requirement, or do only "acceptable" ones count towards it? I removed a BLPPROD tag on Pro7 (Dj/Producer) because it doesn't meet the placement requirement, but I was reverted and the links removed because they do not meet WP:EL or WP:ELBLP. Adam9007 (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

If the external links support at least 1 statement in the article, then BLPPROD doesn't apply. At this stage, I'd suggest using a regular PROD, or AFD however. Iffy★Chat -- 07:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Iffy, That's what I thought, but there are many who would say that sources that aren't policy-compliant do not by definition support anything. Hence cases like this. Adam9007 (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: adding a note clarifying PROD vs BLPPROD

On a few occasions, well-meaning editors have removed regular, non-BLPPROD PROD tags placed on BLP articles on the grounds that the BLPPROD criteria are not met (or alternatively, objected to the addition of a PROD tag when a BLPPROD tag had previously been added and removed following the addition of a single citation). While it's implied in the Scope section (and in the lead of PROD) that these are separate protocols, it's not clearly stated and empirically causes some confusion. I would propose adding something along the lines of the following:

Note: Despite the similarity of their names, BLPPROD and PROD are separate deletion protocols. BLP articles may still be nominated for PROD if they do not meet BLPPROD criteria, or even if an article has previously been flagged for BLPPROD and declined

Another, more drastic, solution would be to rename BLPPROD to something else, but that could potentially open its own can of worms. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support. I'd also say that de-normal PRODed articles are still eligible for BLPPROD if they meet the BLPPROD criteria. Adam9007 (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support and also agree confirming that this works both ways. GiantSnowman 17:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• I've gone ahead and implemented this change since there doesn't seem to be any dissent. Obviously this is still up for further discussion if anyone disagrees. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Policy contradicts itself

This policy is contradictory. It says "To be eligible for a BLPPROD tag, the entry must ... contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography". However it then says "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." {{Prod blp}} similarly states "If no reliable references are found" and "adding reliable sources is all that is required to prevent the scheduled deletion of this article" so, according to both the policy and the template, the template cannot be removed until reliable sources are added, yet it can't be added if it has an unreliable source like imdb. This makes no sense. Anyone can create a website with a claim about someone and create an article with a link to their website and that alone stops the prod blp template from being added. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• True, but a normal prod can be added instead, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• The policy doesn't contradict itself, it just has different standards for adding the tag and removing it. You can only add the tag if the article is completely unsourced, but if someone has (correctly) added a BLP PROD tag then it can only be removed if you add a reliable source. This is a compromise and it has been discussed at length on this page, including above. The idea is that BLP PROD isn't a good mechanism for dealing with unreliable sources, in large part because people often disagree on whether a source is reliable or not. You can still use the normal PROD or AfD processes for dealing with badly sourced articles. Hut 8.5 17:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Exclude certain sources from inital "any source" test

As we are all aware, as it stands, "any source" prevents this tag being placed, but a reliable source is required before removal. I propose that, for the determination of when this tag may be placed, the following sources be excluded:

• IMDB
• Twitter, Facebook, and other social media profiles (as opposed to posts sourcing a specific fact stated within the article).

I submit that a link to someone's Twitter profile should not be enough to prevent application of this tag. Similarly, there is no material difference between an article solely sourced to IMDB and an unsourced article. If I am missing something, or if you support one but not the other, please let me know. Respectfully submitted, Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• I fully, 1000000000% support this. We have a massive problem of unsourced/poorly sourced BLPs that no one cares to fix. This is a problem particularly as they're almost exclusively low profile individuals and we could have prevented the thousands and thousands of poorly sourced articles from rotting away if we actually adhered to WP:BLP with a sensible policy about BLPPROD. Praxidicae (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• If this is to be changed (and I haven't decided whether to support or oppose yet), then this proposal needs to 1. be made in to an WP:RFC to properly evaluate the consensus of the whole community, and 2. be strictly limited to the worst kind of sources (such as the list proposed by the OP) and not just used to allow the deletion of any "poorly sourced" BLP with limited scrutiny. AFD is the place to send poorly sourced biographies that can't be verified. Iffy★Chat -- 20:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• I think the policy is best kept simple without adding lots of caveats. If we allow these sources then it would make sense to add other examples of unreliable sources as well, and the result would be completely unworkable. The subject's social media profile can be an acceptable source in some situations. Hut 8.5 21:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The idea of excluding IMDB has been proposed (and rejected) a few times before, e.g. here and here. Hut 8.5 21:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Oh yeah I proposed that when I was far more clueless. That said, I'd still support a small list of IMDb, Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin, and the subject's own website because verifiability is absolutely key and BLPPROD would still be quite simple; the list can be consigned to heart pretty easily. Also, it would prevent super-fast tagging slightly. J947 ^(c), at 21:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, their social media is an acceptable source generally to deal with primary statements. It is not helpful or even useful for articles which BLPPROD really applies, which are articles where no other sources exist and in theory, cannot be found. We need to make it easier to get rid of crap, especially unsourced BLPs imo. Praxidicae (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I also think BLPPROD is helpful when only social media exists because it alerts interested editors (potentially) to the problem which they can then fix. Nothing like a deletion tag to get someone to actually source stuff...Praxidicae (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Should the person's own website be included among unacceptable sources? (Thinking wannabee musicians, self-published novelists etc?) 80.234.189.226 (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• If this change goes ahead, the exclusion list should include every source that is listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as deprecated. MER-C 18:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• This is what happens with an exclusion list it gets longer and longer and things get more complicated which is why this proposal has been turned down before on the basis of WP:KISS. Perhaps it would be simpler to scrap WP:BLPPROD alltogether and just prescribe a normal prod asking for at least two reliable sources, and if the prod is removed without that improvement either take it to AFD or send it to draft for AFC, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Change BLPPROD's applicability to improperly sourced BLPs?

Should we change BLPPROD's applicability to improperly sourced BLPs? Adam9007 (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC) I'm well aware that something like this has been proposed several times before, but I really do think it's time we changed BLPPROD to allow the deletion of BLPs sourced only to IMDb, social media, subject's own website, etc. I think this view has more widespread support than we think; we can make policy say unsourced as loudly and clearly as we like, but it doesn't stop editors from BLPPRODing articles that are merely poorly sourced rather than actually unsourced, and the removal of BLPPROD tags from such articles without the addition of a reliable source is often considered purely bureaucratic, and sometimes even disruptive. If I understand correctly, the reason BLPPROD's requirement is no sources whatsoever is to keep it simple, but having two different requirements depending on the circumstances actually does the opposite. As for there being disagreement on what constitutes an unreliable source, I think everyone agrees that IMDb, social media, and self-published sources are generally unacceptable (yes, I do realise that they can be used in certain, albeit limited, circumstances). As for sending poorly sourced BLPs through PROD or AfD, normal PRODs can be contested by anyone for any reason (including no reason), and once contested, that's it. So it's somewhat pointless for enforcing the strict BLP sourcing standard we have. AfD would be a waste of time, as the article will either be deleted as poorly sourced, or its sourcing will be improved. Changing BLPPROD accordingly will allow for that without wasting other editors' time, as well as reducing the load at AfD. I just don't see the benefit of forcing them through standard deletion. If the TfD on {{BLP unsourced}} is any indication, we're headed for having two definitions of 'unsourced', and I think it's only logical the BLPPROD goes by the more popular one. Adam9007 (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Variations on this have been proposed and rejected a number of times, with good reason. "Unsourced" is a simple, bright line rule everyone can agree on: the article does not cite any form of source. {{BLP unsourced}} also uses this simple rule. "Improperly sourced" is much harder to define. I believe the intention is to apply it to articles only sourced to unreliable sources and sources which are not independent of the subject (the subject's own website would be a reliable source in a number of situations). Editors disagree about whether a source falls under these criteria all the time, which is why we have processes allowing for discussion and review when evaluating them. To take an example a recent RfC has just spent over 50,000 words arguing over whether a single source (Fox News) is reliable. This is why decisions like that should be left to AfD and normal PROD. Otherwise a BLP PROD applied to an article sourced only to Fox News would be kept or deleted at the whim of the reviewing admin. Other proposals of this type have suggested that we allow BLP PROD to apply to a blacklist of sources generally considered unreliable (e.g. IMDB). The problem with that is that it also makes the policy much more complicated. Hut 8.5 07:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  Hut 8.5, "Unsourced" is a simple, bright line rule everyone can agree on That's where you're wrong, I think; in my experience, 'unsourced' means different things to different editors, especially for BLPs. Yes, I know that BLPPROD makes it crystal clear what it means by 'unsourced', but some editors continue to go by their own definition; only the other day, someone got a bit mardy with me after I removed a BLPPROD tag from an article that has a couple of external links supporting material. They insisted it was unsourced (and therefore BLPPROD-eligible) because it had no inline citations, and that it was my understanding that was wrong, not theirs. I've also seen editors go to great lengths to force poorly sourced BLPs' deletion via BLPPROD; e.g. I've seen editors remove unreliable sources and then tag with BLPPROD, and revert anyone who removes the BLPPROD tag. I've also come across editors who think it's barmy that BLPPROD doesn't cover obviously improperly sourced BLPs. Adam9007 (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  Well yes, there will always be some people who misinterpret policy, but you were right in that situation, external links are sources. I don't see how switching to something which is much more ambiguous will help though. Editors disagree all the time about whether a source is reliable or not or whether something is properly sourced or not. At least with "unsourced" you can point to an objective, universal defintion. That isn't the case for terms such as "poorly sourced". Hut 8.5 17:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  Hut 8.5, At least with "unsourced" you can point to an objective, universal defintion Can we? In the TfD linked to above, there's talk of articles that don't qualify for for BLPPROD but are still unsourced. That sounds to me like we have two definitions of 'unsourced'. Adam9007 (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  Absolutely we can: article contains no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.) which support any statements made about the person. That's an objective, neutral definition. Somebody making a comment in a TfD doesn't change that. I don't see what your alternative definition of "unsourced" is. You seem to be suggesting that it equals "poorly sourced", or "no inline citations", which are fundamentally different problems from being unsourced. Hut 8.5 17:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  Hut 8.5, article contains no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.) which support any statements made about the person Yeah, that's basically what I said in that TfD, but some editors do consider (for BLPs at least) 'poorly sourced' to ultimately be no different to 'unsourced', and 'no inline citations' is confused with 'unsourced' far more often than most people think. Adam9007 (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  Well, those people are wrong. And I don't think you are proposing anything which reduces the scope for confusion. Hut 8.5 18:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  Hut 8.5, Having the same requirement apply at all times would reduce the scope for confusion considerably. Adam9007 (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  It would if the PROD is contested, but it would make it much more complicated when deciding whether the place the tag in the first place. If as you say the concept of "unsourced" is too much for people to grasp, then they'll surely have even more trouble with concepts like "poorly sourced". (Note you haven't exactly made a concrete proposal here, so I have to guess.) Hut 8.5 19:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  Hut 8.5, I though it was obvious that my proposal is to amend BLPPROD's placement requirement? Also, I'm talking here of obvious and unambiguous cases: BLPs sourced only to sources that everyone agrees are generally unreliable. Adam9007 (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  OK you want to change the placement requirement, but what do you want to change it to, exactly? Do you want to allow a select blacklist of unreliable sources (IMDB, Facebook, etc)? Do you want to allow any BLP where the reviewing admin doesn't think the article cites a reliable source? A few of your replies have brought up the issue of people not understanding that external links constitute sources, do you want pages with no inline citations to qualify for BLPPROD? You've also mentioned the issue of pages sourced to the subject's own website, which isn't a reliability issue at all, do you want to allow those? These are all very different proposals and if you don't commit to one then it's difficult to have a discussion about it. Hut 8.5 20:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  Hut 8.5,

  • Do you want to allow a select blacklist of unreliable sources (IMDB, Facebook, etc)? Basically, yes. I think more people than we realise don't like the fact that obviously unreliable sources disqualify an article from BLPPROD, and the more I think about it, the more I see where they're coming from.
  • Do you want to allow any BLP where the reviewing admin doesn't think the article cites a reliable source? No. This needs to be objective. A big part of the reason that A7 and G11 are so controversial is that they're subjective, and in less obvious cases deletion depends largely on who gets there first. The last thing we need is that problem extending to BLPPROD.
  • do you want pages with no inline citations to qualify for BLPPROD? No. A source is a source, regardless of how it's cited or used.
  • You've also mentioned the issue of pages sourced to the subject's own website, which isn't a reliability issue at all, do you want to allow those? Maybe they're confusing 'reliable' with 'third-party' or 'independent', but some editors do seem to think that BLPs containing only an external link to the subject's website should qualify for BLPPROD, even if the link supports material in the article. But if it's reliable, then no. Adam9007 (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Adam9007: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 2,000 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  Redrose64, I suppose my first sentence (maybe the first two) can be considered my brief and neutral statement. Are you saying my post should be split in two? Adam9007 (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Yes we have poor quality articles out there that would be deleted by such a proposal. But are they the worst and especially high risk? I agree that now would be a good time to shift our policies further in favour of quality over quantity, but if we were to do that, would poorly references BLPs be our biggest risk? Especially those that rely on primary sources and are likely to be biased towards the subject. If we were to tighten our policies I would be more concerned about some of the pages in draftspace that would be deleted A7 if they were in mainspace. Or our spam problem, which would be really helped by a sticky CorpProd that enabled the deletion of articles on businesses that didn't have an independent source. ϢereSpielChequers 17:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  WereSpielChequers, BLP content is always very high-risk. That's why our BLP sourcing policy is so strict. Adam9007 (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  We introduced the BLPprod in order to reduce the risk of BLP violations on Wikipedia. Our definition of poorly sourced includes articles sourced to somoeone's bio on their employer or agent's page. There are reasons to consider such Bio's to be poorly sourced, at risk of lacking neutrality and not demonstrating notability. But such articles are not high risk for Wikipedia. I don't recall any instance of us being criticised for repeating info on someone that they or their agent or employer were publishing. I agree it is useful to review and amend policy. But it needs to start from the understanding that some forms of content are riskier than others, and IMHO we should be targeting policy changes at areas of greater risk. Downgrading a source that is known to make up negative information on people and reviewing any content that uses it would be a strategy targeting high risk BLP information. Making it easier to delete stuff sourced by the subject or their agent would to target low risk BLP data. ϢereSpielChequers 17:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - the extant system has a very good effort-to-effect ratio; it's very simple to check, and it clears out a large portion of the undesirable BLP article launches. Making it more complex might make it apply in a few more cases, but it takes more consideration, and more than that, would target more articles that can actually be considered good candidates for rescuing. The fact that someone has an IMDb page makes it much more likely that the person could support a page, even if IMDb itself doesn't make a good reference. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Proposal seems reasonable if we nail down some things like "A biography sourced only to WP:USERG is considered unsourced." I think the issue of "improperly" is just an issue of what term you're using and not because the proposal isn't in the right place. --Izno (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose it's complicated enough as it is. To simplify things why not scrap BLPPROD altogether and just use normal prods instead. First do a source search and if the topic is not notable then prod it and if it's deprodded take it to AFD. BLPPROD is just a lazy excuse for editors who can't be bothered to do a WP:BEFORE and also traps uninformed newbies. Adding one reliable source that just confirms one fact out of many is enough for the removal of the BLPPROD and doesn't solve the notability question. There is also the alternative of moving unsourced or USG sourced articles (blps and non-blps) to draft space for AFC which is a lot tougher than BLPPROD, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per all. The current criteria are simple and thereby foolproof, why complicate things? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. This procedure is not about notability, for which we have PROD and AfD, but a means to protect living people. People don't need protecting against what they have written about themselves. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support when the only source is IMDb and neutral for the rest, for now. Out of the discussed sources IMDb is particularly well-established as unrealible. We have the oft-cited Wikipedia:Citing IMDb and {{BLP IMDb refimprove}} / {{BLP IMDb-only refimprove}}. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Please ! Take Out those self-promoting non-bios - pretending they are giving information that then is not included here. Many minor media writers, reporters, various minor celebrities, media "hosts", and more = cleverly they have pretend-bio pages here. They are only listing their positives w/ self-bragging, with even obscure awards and all is predominantly only self-serving info.

That has cluttered our valued, informative pages here and thus misleads readers that they will find actual, valuable data,real verifiable info or even facts - vs - passing off obviously self-promotional pages. Plus = The top heading on this page wants to easily pretend a posting inclusion is valid - with "any" reference 'tag' tidbit of sourced site added in - as if that was sufficient to be included. NO. Just like corrupted, manipulators in finding tax & law loopholes & technicalities,then this protocol also becomes a pretend - "fake news" - instead of being a valuable improvement of Our Site. Please help Clean UP & take OUT those who are just setting up their or cronies' PR & promos. We intend here to be giving valuable info. And inserting a DOB - if correct or not- or a work title or reference-able tidbit - that is insufficient to count as "1"="any" validating data. I have been angered & disappointed many more than 5x trying to find info here, only to realized i had been fooled, misled & hyped. Those who monitor here can Improve our helpful site. Please do it as i am not educated-skilled in HTML etc. to do more than talk here -appropriately. Thanx. Activistrep (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)activistrep oct 3 2020

Does BLP Prod cover Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Recently dead or probably dead?

Maybe this is obvious to others, but I couldn't really find a concrete answer in the archives. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 02:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Dylsss, eh I would assume so, given that’s how the encyclopedia defines BLP but really the thing to do is try and see if anyone objects. Ha, good luck. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think so, the scope of this policy is different from the scope of the BLP policy: "Although policy on biographies of living persons covers all types of biographical material, the use of this deletion procedure applies only to articles that are biographies of living people". A biography of a dead person isn't a biography of a living person, even if it is subject to the BLP policy. This policy also says "If there is any doubt to the applicability of this procedure, then it is preferable to use another deletion process", which woud seem to be the care here. Hut 8.5 07:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

  Still think that’s only meant to say, you can’t BLPPROD an entry on a film even if the content is mostly about the director. But use of BLPPROD is commonly...disputed terrain so in general I agree with preferring something else. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• BLPProd definitely covers some people who are probably dead. For example, sports people and actors who had a short period of fame seventy years ago and would be a hundred if they were still alive. ϢereSpielChequers 18:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

BLPPROD and AFD

Can an article that has had a AFD (or FFD) ending in "no consensus" or "keep" be BLPPRODed? IMO no but unlike the standard PROD there is no mention about this in the "Before nomination" part. I think if an article has had a previous AFD and not been deleted its likely it should have to go through AFD again, nothing in the talk page archives appears to say anything about this from a quick search. If an article survived AFD its likely sources (which should be restored) have since been removed, the article has been hijacked or the AFD was faulty either way a new AFD should probably be used (or deletion review if recently closed). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale, basically no, it can’t be, even without spelling it out as at regular PROD. The hangup is that if there ever was a valid source (which there would presumably have to be to pass AfD), then an entry can’t be BLPPRODded. So basically all previously AfD’ed articles have to go back there, yes. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: I disagree with Innisfree987 on a technicality. While it is extremely unlikely that a page could pass AFD without a valid source, it is possible. The most likely scenario is that all of the page's sources, past and present, are later found to be unreliable or worse, hoax sources. Another case would be that the source was officially retracted by the publisher. Yet another possibility is that it was closed as "no consensus" because only the nominator wanted to delete it and 1 or 2 bad-faith editors, possibly editors later proven to be blocked or banned at the time, said "keep" so the closer didn't want to close it as "delete." Bottom line: It will be the exception that proves the rule that a page that survived AFD will be deemed to "have never had a reference that would prevent BLPPROD." But it could happen. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 17:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I would say if either happened its likely it would still have to go through AFD and PLPPROD requires (at the time of placement) to have no sources supporting anything (rather than merely unreliable) so yes its very unlikely this would happen but still possible. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

BLPPROD in DraftSpace

Following the 2014 discussion (WT:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people/Archive 6#BLP PROD application outside of article space) and the 2017 discussion (WT:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people/Archive 7#BLPPROD may be used on BLP pages outside article space), and a recent rash of new BLPPRIVATE pages now listed at MfD, I would like to propose a very simple: BLPPROD can be used in Draftspace.

A lot of time has passed since the 2014 discussion, and the 2017 had good support except for the complexity, thus this proposal is simple. This also follows discussions at WT:AfC where we are discussing the lack of process for unsubmitted drafts that are obviously inappropriate. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Shearonink (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose this defeats the entire point of having draft space. Draft space is intended as a safe space where you can work on content without having to meet mainspace standards straightaway. This includes adding references. The trend to insist that drafts must comply with mainspace standards from day one is counterproductive. MfD currently has a whopping 11 draft space pages listed, it's not like there is some massive load of drafts being listed there, for any reason. Hut 8.5 07:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

  But let's say an editor comes along who then creates a large group of Draft BLPs, on 15 or 20 individuals (actually, at last count it's 23+), all of which are about non-notable private persons in a certain small town. What would be the best way to deal with all that content? File individual MfDs? File an amalgamated MfD of all the inappropriate content? leave the drafts alone, to just live on in Draft space as some kind of White Pages for that town because we should leave Drafts alone? This is not some esoteric discussion about a theoretical possibility, it's a situation that is happening now. Shearonink (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

  In the first instance, decline the drafts (while telling the creator why these drafts are unencyclopedic) and let G13 take care of them. Draftspace isn't indexed and isn't a reader-facing namespace. If they keep ignoring the raised issues and keep re-submitting (or deliberately avoiding G13) then you go to MfD. There's no reason to introduce special rules here just because someone creates a lot of content in draftspace that isn't appropriate for the encyclopedia. Iffy★Chat -- 17:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Alternative proposal Instead of "delete after 1 week" "courtesy delete content" (but not AFC templates) if the article content has not been edited in 1 week, leaving the deletion for G13. This would 1) put some pressure on the author to keep editing, but if he waited 8 days he could "restore" the page himself without admin help, 2) keep the page out of Wikipedia's internal index and out of the indexes of non-"noindex"-compliant web-indexers, and 3) have basically no effect other than as a reminder if the editors ARE editing the content page at least once a week. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary, drafts aren't usually indexed and are usually deleted if unsourced after 6 months of not editing anyway. In the rare case where someone was continuing to edit an unsuitable article to prevent G13 a MFD would work. This would more than likely cause WP:DEMOLISH problems and G10 can be used for attack pages anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. BLPPROD always looks good but far too often becomes a timesink instead of saver, in the explaining to all parties involved and in the execution even for those who understand its particulars (gotta check all prior drafts for a single source). If AfC is having a problem efficiently dispatching pages that obviously will never be encyclopedic, my inclination is to look for a solution in CSD territory. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - semi-speedy deletion has no place in draftspace. It is plausible someone may begin a draft on an individual likely to become notable in a short period of time. I'd also like to echo Crouch, Swale in regard to G13. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 11:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
• Meh there is a problem, but I'm not sure either that draftspace is a good idea or that unleashing BLPprod in it would be helpful. G3 and G10 can both be used on those drafts that merit it, certain other things can be suppressed by the oversight team. Given the number of all those that I have recently found in draftspace whilst trawling for typos, I have a concern that some of our AFC patrollers are not as familiar with the criteria for G3, G10 and oversight as I'd like. Either that or a lot of these drafts simply aren't looked at for months. BLPprod is good at getting rid of articles on marginally notable and unnotable sportspeople, academics, entertainers and businesspeople. But there is much worse stuff on the site, and if we were to change the rules I would prefer to see us tackle more serious problems. ϢereSpielChequers 14:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support per nom. Anything that clears the backlog is a good thing. SK2242 (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Crouch, Swale puts it very well. The only circumstances in which this would ever be needed is if there is a BLP issue that is in draft space and cannot wait for G13 and does not meet any other speedy deletion criterion and cannot be fixed by normal editing and is not severe is enough to require oversighting. In those circumstance nominate the page at MfD (as you can and should be doing already), it has plenty of capacity. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Defeats the whole point of draft space as a place to work on drafts without fear of deletion. Regards SoWhy 13:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. BLP applies to any Wikipedia page which includes drafts. I am more concerned about non-draftspace drafts. I think draftspace has G13 which solves most issues and leaves fairly little for MfD but there are a lot of non-draftspace 'drafts' (if you can can call them that) in Category:Userspace drafts which I guess belong as MFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose more bureaucracy, userspace and draftspsace are already policed for anything dodgy, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support You'd be surprised at the number of fake drafts that would be BLPPROD'd (if it was in article space) at the very least and quite often speedy-deleted in any other namespace. In fact, such pages sometimes are speedy-deleted (albeit questionably under the current policy). All they actually do is clutter up MfD, where they are inevitably deleted. I'm all for preserving the intention draftspace, but not to the point of it delaying the inevitable and prolonging the existence of stuff that clearly doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Adam9007 (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose give the writers time to work. Attack pages can be speedy deleted. Inappropriate info reveals can be redacted or deleted. The main problem in drafts is promotion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I hope the opposers will be spending some time at MfD to clear out these worthless drafts then if we can’t PROD. SK2242 (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  SK2242, On the contrary, some think that MfD is a waste of time and such drafts should be left be until G13. In fact, there's even talk of making drafts exempt from certain speedy deletion criteria, including G11. Adam9007 (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  Wow. Drafts exempt from general speedys would be a disaster. SK2242 (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  Yes I think sending drafts to MFD is generally a waste of time anyway (unless being continuously edited to avoid G13) since as noted G13 generally happens after 6 months. So I'd ask why the supporters are spending time at MFD rather than waiting for G13. I'd maybe be OK with perhaps drafts over a year old and meeting certain criteria being eligible but I don't think even that's worth it. I'd agree with Adam if anything I'd consider making more exemptions for drafts with CSD such as G1, G2 and possibly even G11. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

  Crouch, Swale, I'd consider making more exemptions for drafts with CSD such as G1, G2 and possibly even G11 Those criteria are sometimes (mis)used to delete harmless drafts that wouldn't pass muster in article space, which is partially why there's talk of making drafts exempt from them. G2 (and sometimes G1) is often used to delete drafts that would meet A3 in draftspace, which has made me question the point of A3. You'd be surprised at the amount of stuff in draftspace being speedy-deleted pre-G13, which is one reason I support the expansion of BLPPROD to draftspace. Adam9007 (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

  The solution then would be to work on disallowing (or discouraging) some of the CSD for draftspace (and making sure those that do apply are applied correctly) not replacing one problem with another by not allowing CSD but allowing BLPPROD. A3 clearly only applies to articles as the name suggests. I certainly agree unsourced BLPs are harmful in mainspace but far less so in draftspace. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Ray Fenwick

This article is now marked as unreferenced dated November 2010 after the deprecated source was removed. Even though there was a source and the article has some ELs the article probably wouldn't be eligible since there were sources at one point as opposed to after a tag being added, I was just looking at Category:All unreferenced BLPs from Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people/Archive 7#RfC: Remove the grandfather clause? where it noted in February 2017 that the oldest was December 2014. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah here the ELs count as a source for BLPPROD so it’s not technically unreferenced. I once went through and adjusted a bunch of tags accordingly but don’t presently have the motivation, I’m afraid. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Well ELs appear to count only if they support any statements in the article but the main point is that there was a source (that was deemed unreliable) that supported a statement so wouldn't be eligible even though it was removed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, indeed on both (mentioned the ELs because here it verifies that he's a musician.) But also true about unreliable sources being enough before the placement of the tag... Innisfree987 (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)