Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion

Userpage exception for G1 and G3

The policy gives a userpage exception for CSD G2 (test page). It should also give an exception for G1 and G3, in agreement with practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.7.125 (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

not G3 and dubiously G1. A p. devoted to what amounts to vandalism can and has been done in user space. DGG (talk) 07:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with DGG on G3 but it might be a consideration for G1. After all, userspace is a place for testing and sandboxing amongst other things and what is not making sense now might make sense if the user has some time to work on it. Deleting stuff under G1 in userspace seems like a stupid idea to me. G3 implies bad faith by the user and if they are using userspace nonsense as vandalism, we can still G3 it. But if they are acting in good faith, it would be silly to delete such pages and risk alienating a good-faith contributor. As with certain "secret page" deletions, the harm that using G1 in userspace can cause is much higher than the benefits of deleting a page noone cares about anyway. Regards SoWhy 07:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's much of a need for this. Vandalism is vandalism anywhere (and in the case that there's a really good reason, I'm sure no admin would refuse a reasonable undeletion request when appropriate), and I suspect most admins would give more latitude about userspace pages than those elsewhere. Stifle (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• If a user wants to create a userpage full of patent nonsense or faux vandalism, that's their prerogative. If ANOTHER user creates someone elses userpage as vandalism or nonsense, then that is G3. Common sense prevails... –xeno (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I wish that was true but recent experience with MZMcBride's deletions tells us that not all admins have that view about userspace and some like to use G1 as a carte blanche; so I don't think adding an exception to G1 would hurt but might be useful. As you point out, it's still G3 if someone else posts nonsense in your userspace so it would not really change anything but make a clear statement that you are allowed to post nonsense in your own userspace. SoWhy 13:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Added to G1. –xeno (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This thread is patent nonsense. We're not a test wiki or a pastebin. It's as simple as that. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not everyone sees things in black and white like you do, MZMcBride. Is it okay if some consensus is formed?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As difficult as it is to register an account and create a user page with "poop" and then leave forever, I see no reason to memorialize such nonsense. Sure, look for the elusive beast known as consensus all you'd like to, but throwing common sense out the window in favor of 'zomg policy' is unacceptable. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-constructive IP comment [1] removed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the simple pleasures. –xeno (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

User pages exception for G1 (patent nonsense)

Recap:

March 20, User:Xeno added user pages as an exception to G1 [2]. Previously, G1 contain no reference including or excluding user pages.

Nine days later, User:MZMcBride took it out, I, User:SmokeyJoe, put it back, and User:CalendarWatcher put it back again, calling for wider discussion.

I believe that the userpage exception should be put back in (ie nonsense userspace pages should not be speediable) for the following reasons:

• Judging patent nonsense is not uncontestable. There may be meaning in it that isn’t obvious.
• Such pages are often kept at MfD, with the user educated in our expectations of userspace usage.
• Patent nonsense is better dealt with by blanking, as a non-administrative action. If it was a mistake, the user can revert. If the user needs to learn, it is easier if the removed nonsense remains accessible for reference. If a user repeatedly posts nonsense, calling it CSD#G3 is readily justifiable. If correcting patent nonsense posting is routinely dealt with non-administratively, then general users will be better encouraged to clean up nonsense themselves. The simple task of cleaning up nonsense, following the non-simple task of identifying it, should not be delineated as an administrator task.
• MfDs and blankings by another editor are more effective educationally. They involve inter-editor interaction, and do not involve administrator-newcomer power imbalance.
• CSD criteria authorize mass deletions, and there is more danger of impersonal deletions intimidating new users than there is advantage in deleting nonsense pages in userspace (WP:PERFORMANCE)

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved back

Summary justice is that with which, in their disdain, they have, in some few instances, prevailed upon themselves to indulge the vulgar herd.

Jeremy Bentham, Bentham's Draught for the Organization of Judicial Establishments

Given the comments so far about this move, I think it's clear to say that many disagree with the move. I've moved the page back to its original title for now and we can restart discussion. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've no problem with that as long as we don't now get "it's been moved twice already" as a reason to oppose a move, which would be a little pathetic. Don't forget to 'unfix' the two double redirects (WP:CSD and WP:SPEEDY) that I updated; I left the other 70 (!) until we came to a conclusion. Happy‑melon 14:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That summary justice is really the genuine, and regular the counterfeit, is what any one, who has read the observations of Article 21 of the preceding Title has, I trust, found some cause to suspect.

Jeremy Bentham, Bentham's Draught for the Organization of Judicial Establishments

At this point it would be sensible to summarise from the previous discussion. As noted by MZMcBride as the OP, we regularly encounter the misunderstanding that "speedy" implies either "delete as quickly as possible", or "delete without thought or evaluation". Neither of these are true, but we have a minor but recurring problem of admins who work CAT:CSD believing that they are. There is also the issue that a number of the CSD criteria have time limits which make a total mockery of the "speedy" concept; with some tags needing to be left in place for a week before "speedy" deletion is allowed. Black Falcon proposed "summary" as a replacement to preserve the CSD acronym, with connection to summary judgment; "summary" has the very appropriate meaning of "Performed speedily and without formal ceremony". Happy‑melon 14:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• "Summary justice" also means an absence of proper justice, it means vigilantism, not listening and a host of unhappy connotations for those who understand the term. For those who don't understand the term, there's the confusion of thinking it's something to do with precis. And I'm not sure I agree with the perceived problems with "speedy deletion" being really problematic. Can we do this a stage at a time, rather than rushing? I applaud your zeal, but for a useful process, start by discussing the problem. You may find there's no consensus that there is one, which would render everything else moot. --Dweller (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • If you define 'justice' for article deletion as a full AfD, then yes, CSD is summary justice. If you factor in WP:IAR, then yes, there is an element of vigilanteism. In the rather bizzarre quasi-legal structure that exists here, I think the phrase actually summarises the situation perfectly.

    I guess I should have explained what I was doing better, but a big reason for being bold was to encourage further discussion; see for instance the rather better explanation I gave here on a similarly bold update of {{mfd}}. You can't deny that the move has encouraged that discussion! Happy‑melon 15:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

  • But on the other hand, summary judgement is a judicial proceeding, albeit without a full trial on the merits. – ukexpat (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, the move did encourage further discussion! :) I reread the archive just now, and I didn't see a lot of consensus -- I did see a lot of people not taking the suggestion too seriously. However, since we're having a serious discussion now, I'll chime in. I'm not a fan of "summary", because of the association with vigilantism. Yes, speedy has its problems, but summary is not an improvement.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have a strong opinion either way. "Summary" is a bit ambiguous, but "speedy" also has its flaws. Kudos to Happy-melon for boldly making an attempt to get the ball rolling. –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 15:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think "speedy" conveys it quite correctly actually, except in those cases where the tags need to be in place for a week. But the point is that it's not "as fast as possible" but fast if compared to PROD or AFD. If an article is deleted after 12 hours, it's still 10 times faster than at AFD or with a PROD. So it's comparatively speedy. The only other word for it might be "criteria for uncontroversial deletion" because the only thing all criteria have in common is that they should not be applied when it's a controversial deletion. But speedy deletion has been established for years now and I do not think any change would be solving the underlying problem that some admins are too careless when speedy deleting. That won't be solved by a name change, if anything, "summary deletion" would encourage them to think that they are the "judges" of the deletion rather than just the janitors who clean up the mess. Regards SoWhy 15:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think speedy is the wrong word--the point of the process is not the time, it takes, but of clearing out the garbage without the need to discuss it, which more closely its "summary". I am not completely sure it's the best word possible, but it has an advantage in starting with the same letter. And it is the standard term for a roughly analogous legal process. DGG (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And for executions without trial. I doubt people know the legal process, but they probably know "summary execution". And as pointed out above, summary deletion would rather be a correct name for AFD because allows involvement by both parties, not only one like speedy deletion usually does. I think speedy needs to be read as compared to normal deletion because it still is faster than going through deletion discussions. A replacement word would have to show that it only applies when there is no need for discussion, so the correct name in that case would be "criteria for deletion without discussion". Regards SoWhy 16:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Not thinking of it in legalistic terms at all is a better approach. As noted, the legalisms are prone to misunderstanding and creative misinterpretation, always at risk of metamorphosing into arguments over actual law, and also subject to simple ignorance of specialist meanings of words in favour of general meanings. After all, Wikipedia isn't a court of law or a social experiment. Start renaming things to legalisms, and soon people will be quoting Jeremy Bentham at you to tell you why Wikipedia's "summary deletion" isn't the same as summary justice. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• I oppose renaming to "summary deletion" - it has few identifiable benefits, and the new name smacks of quick legal proceedings, treating the subject with disdain. Basically, I agree with Uncle G above. We may not mean it in that way, but it gives that impression nonetheless. The current name is fine IMO. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think summary is a good word here. While it seems correct in juridical sense, most of people are probably unfamiliar with it and first thing a wiki editor would make a connection to is the edit summary. And this does not make much sense. My personal opinion is that the expression speedy is just fine - how fast does a bad article get deleted after being tagged? Speedy. Not to mention copyvios and BLP violations that actually should be deleted as fast as possible. By the way, a great deal of people would also think that Jeremy Bentham is in fact John Locke. :-) --Tone 16:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, I hadn't thought of the edit-summary confusion. I'll just offer up swift deletion since it fits the initials and I just thought of it, but it's no real improvement. Just leave it as it is, I reckon! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - this renaming is a needless waste of everyone's time. Even if it would have been better to call it "summary deletion" originally (which I doubt, for reasons given by others above), changing it now can't possibly be worth the hassle. And even if it were, it's extremely unlikely to achieve a wide enough consensus to do it. So I'd urge those who wanted the move to reconsider and find something more constructive to do. Rd232 ^talk 16:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

How is it a waste of everyone's time? Nobody is forcing anybody to participate in this discussion. –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 16:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you move this page, you break the entire Internet. True story. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Whether the name of a well-known Wikipedia page needs to be changed depends on the intended audience. Who are we trying to convince that speedy deletions shouldn't be thought of as speedy? If admins, then we don't need to change a page name to do that, we can simply discuss it with the admins and tell us/them the decision. Taggers? No, I actually want them to think of the deletion as speedy; I want someone who's considering a WP:CSD G7 of their own creation to think "I better do this only if I'm certain, because if I do it, the page is likely to be deleted speedily." I want someone tagging for db-spam to think "I should only tag this page if the tone is so obviously promotional that it should be deleted speedily, without discussion." And as I said above, I don't want to be arguing with attack-page-creators and self-promoters about why I deleted their page so fast; "speedy" says it for me. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose name change This is a solution looking for a problem. The name of Speedy Deletion is not an issue, and any minor confusion/ambiguity would be compounded by naming it "summary deletion". We already talk about "edit summaries" and such, so using the word for an entire category of deletion would simply confuse new users. At least with "speedy deletion" the word "speedy" means the same thing every time (at least close enough to avoid major confusion) it is used. I do not see a need to change it; no compelling problem exists. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Bold commments don't really help form consensus. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This problem taxed the minds first of the cloning engineers, then of the priests, then of the letters page of the Sidereal Record Straightener, and finally of the lawyers who experimented vainly with ways of redefining murder, re-evaluating it and in the end even respelling it in the hope that no one would notice.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Fit the Eleventh

I have to flip my opinion - I think the current name is misleading, but that "summary" has its own misleading aspects - most importantly, many people are simply not familiar with the use of the word in that sense. I would support "Deletion without discussion" but that would change the acronym. Dcoetzee 20:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• If you must have an 'S'-word to replace Speedy, I would suggest Simple. I think the important connotation here is that the deletion decision is a simple one: does the article meet the predefined criteria for what should be deleted? If yes, then it can be SD'd (sorry, no snappy verb). If no, then a more complex procedure should be followed. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • "Simplified" doesn't quite hit the mark, does it? That's actually an interesting suggestion. It at least has the dual advantages of (a) not being a legalism, and (b) not having the connotations of the other words immediately below. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• Other S words suggested from before: "scheming, secret, sharp, shifty, shrewd, slick, sly, smart, smooth, sneaking, sneaky, stealthy, subtle, supervisory, surreptitious"... Instead of Criteria for Speedy Deletion, we can have Cabal Scheming for Deletion. ;-)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with changing to "summary deletion". "Speedy deletion" indicates exactly what the process is; "summary deletion" simply does not. No need to change this so only WP policy fans get it intuitively. Townlake (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• My two cents is that I also dislike the "summary deletion" name, and much prefer "speedy deletion". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC).
• I also oppose the name change. While there could be a better name than "speedy", "summary" is not the way to go. What about "procedural deletion"? That embodies the hard-line attitude that's taken towards it, as a juxtaposition to the "discussion" style that AfD is supposed to be. ThemFromSpace 03:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• This is another of many recent proposals based on the odd idea that re-naming something actually changes the way it will work. Playing a shell game with the name is not going to change anything, so I am also opposed to this idea. If you want to change the actual process that is a different matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • As someone with that account name, I'm surprised that you don't suggest "Criteria for page revocation". S-P-E-E-D-Y-D-E-L-E-T-I-O-N, revocation. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, unnecessary busywork. Stifle (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• No problem with the bold move of renaming the page - that's how Wikipedia has progressed. A shake of the head and a loud tut at all those who winged and moaned like old nanny goats when an experienced editor in good standing simply cut through process and made a bold edit. However, I see no gain from renaming the page, and much to be lost. It is a well used name, and conveys the sense of the job just as well as the proposed new name. If there are problems with the speedy deletion process, then those problems need to tackled directly. Renaming speedy to summary to prevent inappropriate tagging, is like wallpapering over the cracks of a house with subsidence. SilkTork *^YES! 23:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with the suggestion that "deletion without discussion" is the best name for this process, and that's the one I'd vote for if we were creating this process from scratch. But "speedy deletion" does a good enough job of describing the process and it has a lot of history and general knowledge among our contributors. Changing it really is unnecessary busy-work; it makes little or no difference to the ultimate goal of actually creating an encyclopedia: how we execute this process is far, far more important than what it's called. ~ mazca ^t|c 00:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I never saw the problem with speedy, and honestlty after reading most of the discussions still don't see a problem with it. I will note that I had to fix a broken redirect to this page (encountered when clicking a link in a CSD template). I thought we had a bot for that? §hep^Talk 01:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose the use of "summary" as an attempt to solve a nonexistent problem by making things worse. DreamGuy (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose this is of very low importance, the status quo is acceptable, and there is no obviously objectively better alternative. honestly, find something better to work on. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop the wholesale Deletion of the Usepages of Indefinitely Blocked Users

The deletion of “usepages of indefinitely blocked users’, especially the talk pages, should stop until such deletions are properly described here at WP:CSD. The policy problem is that these deletions are not covered by WP:CSD or any XfD. The actual problem is that the category is too broad and includes pages that should not be deleted.

For example. User_talk:posturewriter contains in its history a lot of material relevant to the development (and misdevelopment) of mainspace articles. To start to understand the history of the mainspace articles, this user_talk page is important.

It also contains records relevant to the development of WP:MEDRES. This guideline is important but causes problems with some new contributors, and deleting the talk pages of those who have the troubles is not a method for revealing shortcomings in the guideline, and improving on them.

This talk page contains material useful for the development of wikipedia mediation issues. Mediation, or education of the stubornly wayward, or how to cope with the pain and disruption of kooks, however you choose to look at these kind of problems, is definitely an area where we would like to do better. It is not helpful to delete the userpages of every constructive editor who had trouble with our rules, became belligerent, got indefinitely blocked, and didn’t proceed to appeal within one month.

I’m not wholesale against the deletion of userpages of indefinitely blocked users, such as vandalism only, or personal attack only, but the talk pages of users who made good faith contributions to mainspace should not be deleted out-of-process. The example page was even kept at MfD, before being deleted following a series of knee-jerk administrative decisions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this, but the discussion should be taken up at WP:AN I think. Stifle (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Stifle. This is not the place for this discussion. Administrator's Noticeboard and the Village Pump are the place for this kind of discussion. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I hate it when important policy matters are discussed and lost at WP:AN. This is clearly a matter of deletion policy. Deletion policy should be described, for the benefit of those doing it, or subject to it. Non-XfD deletions should be codified here. Cross-post at WP:AN and pumps by all means. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This is how we have handled these pages for years. I think the harm associated with it is greatly exaggerated. Policy has yet to describe this long existing practice, it needs to catch up and our practices should not have to wait for that. Chillum 22:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it only takes just one admin to do it this way for years. Unless someone questions it, as in the recent spate of deletions of "secret pages", we won't even know what the concensus is because many users (especially ones who can't see the deleted pages) won't ever see what was deleted. Just yesterday I was scratching my head over a "new" user talk page that appeared on my watchlist. After a bit of poking, I realized that I had watchlisted it before the user got indef'd, then someone deleted the user and talk pages, and now someone else had posted a sockblock template on the talk page, making it show up on my watchlist. Later, someone will come along and delete it, still later someone will template it -- how is this in any way productive? If you need to get rid of something on the user/talk page, delete it once and immediately put up some kind of template that says "indef'd and deleted", and then leave it the heck alone.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You might dislike the convention, but I can almost guarantee that you won't get the result you want if you try to confine the discussion to the CSD talk page. I understand that it seems strange that you would have to take a discussion about a CSD policy elsewhere (and, contrary to Chillum, I don't think that "We've done it that way for years" is a justification for anything at all). However, the reason this is CSD policy is (if I recall the history correctly) because it was being done so widely that someone thought it should be put in the policy somewhere. Policy pages on Wikipedia are not laws; they are summaries of "best practices" as they are figured out in the field, and thus are kept up to date with what is generally done, not the other way around. Reverting long-standing consensus requires many eyes; this page is not heavily trafficked enough for that. Therefore, forming consensus on this talk page will have the appearance of attempting to push through policy changes using procedural loopholes (forming "consensus" with only a few people who pay attention to this talk page, where others might have very strong dissenting opinions). As it happens, I tend to agree with your attitude about this, but you won't get any support from me (or most others, I would wager) unless you bring it to a wider audience. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a basic misunderstanding of wiki process here. It starts with discussion in the smallest group, not the largest. If no consensus is found here, then discussion, per WP:DR expands. The noticeboards are often used, but they are actually a bad idea; they are hot environments, with lots of editors making snap judgments, and the questions get easily diverted. (But there is no harm to a mention of ongoing discussion on AN, or the Village Pump, for that matter, but RfC is better. With a good RfC and if consensus isn't obvious at the conclusion, there are issues here that would be appropriate for ArbComm, and a good RfC helps to delineate the issues.

I dislike that anyone would withhold local consensus based on a wider group not having been consulted, it violates basic principles of deliberative process, i.e., objecting based on what you think some other imaginary editor might think. If any editor here thinks that any specific editor would have something to contribute to this, or would object to some new consensus here, the editor is totally free to inform that person, it isn't WP:CANVASS violation unless such a notification is widespread or designed to support the alleged canvassing editor's POV, and my objection is obviously only to what Ryan expressed: "I tend to agree," but "you won't get any support ... unless you bring it to a wider audience." Someone who thinks a wider audience is needed should take it to the wider audience, not reject a good idea in order to force someone else to do that. --Abd (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Having done it for years without any apparent problem is a pretty good indication it is not a problem. Some vandals have nothing better to do than stir up a bunch of shit on their talk page before during and after their indefinite block just to have this trophy page. We deny them that trophy. It has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia so we don't host it. This is simply a matter of housekeeping, crap piles up, we remove it. Chillum 23:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, it's getting done as a kneejerk reaction. If the crap needs to be flushed, then flush it, but think first. (And if it's just juvenile stuff, blank it). Unfortunately, a small number of admins think every indef'd talk page needs to be deleted.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

. There's been tons of discussion on this subject and the pages deleted are generally checked against several criteria, in addition waiting at least a month after the last edit to delete it. Mr.Z-man 05:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

In my example below, the talk page was deleted after slightly less than a month (but only 4 days, so I don't think that is a big deal). But what were the criteria for deleting it? There was absolutely nothing that needed to go, and there definitely was useful information for people keeping an eye on that sock.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not the vandalism accounts which are the problem - these have been happily deleted for years, but the talk pages of contributors with a 'meaningful history' in their talk page which is useful to the encyclopaedia. These were never part of CAT:TEMP when it started, for the same reasons that sockpuppets were pulled out of the category. Numerous discussions, for example at WT:UP have pointed out that these pages can be useful without being considered trophies. As the deletions are mainly done by bots looking through CAT:TEMP, the problem mainly lies in the blocking templates which puts them there, in particular {{uw-block3}}. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused then. (No big surprise). User talk:Angels Live is the page I refered to above. This edit, which put an indef block and sock template onto the page, also added Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. If you look through the edit history after that, having a working indef block template means they are in Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. Is there some other template people should use to keep those pages out of the temporary category? If so, apparently not everyone knows about it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

{{do not delete}}. Its already contained in all the sock templates and I believe all the spam-warning templates. Or just don't put {{indef}} on the page, or use {{indef|historical}}. Mr.Z-man 05:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Chillum. No apparent problem? Did you look for problems? Was the editor effectively silenced with easy to find evidence of appeal? Was a potentially valuable contributor put off due to being treated harshly, with the ultimate door slam of DELETION of his talk history and ability to edit under his chosen username. What about our reputation for dealing with people? We are not talking about vandals and trolls. Vandals and trolls have little hesitation in creating new accounts. I am talking about the contributors of some good and lots of “good faith” contributions. These people are blocked. Why delete the talk history? Just because you can’t see a purpose, it doesn’t mean that there can be no purpose. Unless you already know everything that is useful to know? Have we nothing to learn (think communication effectiveness of guidelines, wikipedia mediation processes)? The costs of failing to learn can be incalculable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Valuable contributor? These are people that are indef blocked, by definition no longer welcome here. If there is a good reason to not delete a page, remove it from the category. If someone needs it for future defense they can ask for the contents. This seems like a tempest in a teapot here.

I see this is a passionate subject for you. For me it is a simple matter of housekeeping, I have no strong feelings on the matter. I do have a position though and I have explained it. Chillum 23:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This is about clarification of policy. Should every indef block lead blindly to userpsace deletions after one month? When looking into the history of things (controversial mainspace pages, policy effectiveness, guideline interpretation issues, development of how we do things, I don’t want to not find a whole section of our history because it was automatically deleted for no good reason, and if I do find out about deleted information on talk pages, I don’t want to have to ask for it, each and every time. People are indef blocked sometimes with an expectation that they may see the error of their ways, and apologise in an appeal. People are not always indef blocked because everything they have every done was without value. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No, this is not personal for me. It see a need for improvement, and making changes is only getting harder. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to keep a candle burning in the window for forlorn problem children to see the error of their ways. People must be held accountable for their own actions, and if their actions are so egregious as to warrant an indef, then, IMO, good riddance. Tarc (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

My point was that there sometimes is value in the past contributions of an indef blocked user, and that there can be material of use in the talk page history, and that the history of what happened with a now indef blocked user can be very important in our policy and process development. It is not about candles, or one last hope for rehabilitation. I am asking for the histories to be kept available behind the blanked pages of the blocked user. Is there a serious suggestion WP:DENY asks for talk page revisions to be routinely deleted for every blocked user? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Tarc has explained my position fairly well. Chillum 00:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tarc as well. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I love reading the minutiae of Wikipedia operations, so I have several reasons to request that indefinitely blocked users with substantial contribution histories be kept: 1. Reading the history of such events is educational for new editors such as myself; 2. Where user pages have been deleted, the resulting lack of transparency will sometimes result in accusations of conspiracies and cabals; 3. Precendent is important in courts of law, so case details are always preserved; this seems like a fine principle for WP also; 4. A user starting afresh may unwittingly be tainted by the name of a blocked user. cojoco (talk) 04:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have no particular opinion about userpages, but user talk pages should be left untouched unless it contains libel or slander something else that is illegal in the real-world sense. Deleting such pages makes it harder to compare edits of new vandals to old ones and let's them get away with things that would otherwise be easily handled. The speedy deletion criteria says that pages by a blocked user in violation of their ban should be deleted, but it doesn't say anything about other pages they created before they were banned. Obviously using userpages as a webhost after the block should be stopped, but there is no particular reason to delete talk pages. Admins can thrawl deletion logs. Any other user would be left in the dark if they tried to investigate the blocked user's history. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• I cannot see any actual purpose in deleting most of these pages. It does not reclaim storage. It uses work of both the server and whoever is doing it. Andthere are many inactive users who return after a while. We need all we can get. DGG (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You cannot return if you've been indef blocked. Pages of retired or inactive users don't get deleted. If there is anything of value on a blocked user's talkpage (not just vandal warnings and CSD notices) then you can add the historical tag to the {{indefblock}} template. Users with sockpuppet templates aren't deleted either. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 17:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Simply not true. I was indef blocked. Lots of users are indef blocked or even banned and return; indeed, we prefer that they return, if they do, with their original account. "Indef" means "blocked until unblocked," which might or might not mean forever. There is an additional problem. Sometimes editors are abusively blocked, but for various reasons the community never ends up looking at it or only looks at it much later. Later on, reviewing the actions of an administrator, it can sometimes be seen that there was inadequate warning, or no warning, the admin was in a conflict with the editor, or was even insulting the editor, I can think of an ArbComm case where bad blocks were dug up much later, and helped to show a pattern. Delete the page, only admins can see it, and admins are overwhelmed already. DGG is right. Deleting these pages is make-work that brings no value to the project; certainly many of these pages also bring no value, but others do. There is no harm in blanking the pages, and truly harmful pages can be deleted anyway because of the harm, not because of the indef block, and it's clear that sometimes Talk page deletions are done by admins in service of their own POV. This is rare, I think, but it can help cover the tracks of an abusive admin, and abusive admins can do a lot of damage before our extraordinarily cumbersome process catches up with them. --Abd (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of the pages that are deleted for this reason are vandal-only accounts and username-blocks. Userpages of sockpuppets, banned users, and spammers are kept for tracking purposes. Even then, deleting the talk page doesn't make it impossible for them to appeal. Mr.Z-man 17:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandal-only accounts, if it's truly vandalism -- that should be quite clear and not merely a matter of POV -- should indeed be grounds for deletion. But I've seen the temp category used to delete talk pages for editors who did make useful contributions, but who ran afoul of this or that administrator. I've seen an account blocked for alleged username violation that wasn't; being able to track the warnings and conversation helped me greatly to understand what happened; eventually, some justice will be done, but it takes one step after another, beginning with establishing that this editor actually made positive contributions, and that work should be done within weeks. (The proof will be that the contributions returned, more than a year later, with consensus.) Delete the pages, only an admin could do this kind of follow-up work, thus increasing workload on admins at the same time as concentrating ever-more power in their hands. Structurally, very bad idea. (However, expand the class of editors who can review deleted pages, make that an easily-granted privilege like rollback, then deleting such pages becomes far more reliably harmless.) --Abd (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Is any purpose served by deleting the pages? I can see several reasons, and some minor value, in keeping them. Among these are the need sometimes to review (often years later) what happened to an article and why certain edits were made, for example to track down a copyright violation or review a new suspicion of sockpuppetry. Deleting inactive accounts strikes me as problematic in the same way that deleting any historical records is - you lose your history. Inasmuch as ther is usually nobody to stand up for an indef blocked account, there is no check and balance on the deletion process. Rather than deleting, I suggest categorization, moving, templating, or some other way to flag a user as being of no value to the encyclopedia and kept only to preserve the record. Wikidemon (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Further, categorization or the other approaches is easily reversible and can be done by any editor. The wiki system allows individual editors to make decisions subject to review. Deletion makes review possible only for a small class of editors, difficult to join under present conditions. Deleting history is truly dangerous in the long run, there should therefore be broad consensus on the necessity of it. Nobody to stand up for an indef blocked account. Yes, often, and when the blocked editor simply goes away mad and convinced that Wikipedia itself is abusive, rather than merely the blocking admin, long-term, deeply-rooted damage is done. This happens particularly to experts, who are quite vulnerable. I'm working on an RfC right now which involves an expert, and I've seen other prior cases. Experts can easily become uncivil when confronted with tenacious disrespect from non-experts. It's a fault (I point out to them when I can -- it's not professional), but a common one, and we need to deal much more carefully with experts if we want to retain them, as we should. Instead, we insult them as "POV-pushers" (big surprise, experts often have a strong POV!), attack them as COI because they have published in the field, block them quickly for incivility, ignoring incivility directed against them, and generally treat them worse than vandals. This is a huge problem. I would not suggest turning the project over to experts, but we'd better welcome them, particularly in Talk, or we will continue to spread the reputation I have found common among experts that Wikipedia is hopeless. The expert editor I have in mind was recently blocked (February, I think), and the Talk page was rapidly deleted citing the speedy criterion discussed here. Eventually, I'll get this fixed, but it takes a huge amount of work to clean up one of these messes. --Abd (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Real numbers instead of random guesses

Rather than making random guesses about how many pages are in the category that shouldn't be, I decided to actually do some checking. At the time I started writing this, there were 2,529 User talk pages in the category. Of these, 9 (0.3%) have at least 100 revisions. On the other hand, there's 2,316 pages (91.5%) that have no more than 10 revisions and 479 (18.9%) that only have 1. Looking at the 9 pages with more than 100 revs:

• User talk:WaltDaMan - 409 revisions, mostly things like [3]
• User talk:Axmann8 - 405 revisions, contains useful history, though its unlikely the user will ever be unblocked.
• User talk:Writegeist - 293 revisions, possibly useful
• User talk:Manutdglory - 211 revisions, possibly useful, though a good portion of the history is just image copyright warnings
• User talk:Lynch1000s - 153 revisions, all but a handful are vandalism by the user, but it has a sockpuppet template, so it won't be deleted anyway.
• User talk:Painjoiker - 134 revisions, almost entirely deletion notifications and other template warnings.
• User talk:Viktor van Niekerk - 119 revisions, possibly useful, though it looks like mostly rants by the user
• User talk:Foxcow - 115 revisions, mostly vandalism warnings and random garbage like [4]
• User talk:Cheers dude - 112 revisions, possibly useful, but there's a sock template on the userpage, so it will be kept.

So of the 0.3% of pages that have a significant amount of revisions, 2 would have been kept anyway under the current criteria (sockpuppet tracking) and only 4 (0.16%) of the remaining had useful history. In any case, since the query is fast enough, I'll be changing the bot that maintains the category (i.e. removing sockpuppet pages, and pages of users not actually blocked) to remove pages that have >= 100 revisions. Mr.Z-man 19:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I tend to agree that even a 0.16% redunction in the false positive rate is a good thing given the uncertainty over what the rate really is, and the relatively low improvement to the encyclopedia on an incremental basis for each true positive. What are the numbers for 50, or 20 revisions? I would think that even 20 revisions on an indeffed account's talk page indicates that there may be a substantial history with something useful in it. Wikidemon (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

For sockpuppets, make sure your bot removes the {{indefblock}} and adds the relevant parameter to the sock template, rather than adding the historical parameter. Sockpuppets don't belong in Category:Blocked historical users. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 20:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why talk pages with less than 100 revisions should be automatically considered devoid of usefulness. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

In most cases it's just escalating warnings or block notices; nothing useful if the person's gone for good and shows every indication of such. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 06:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

They're not, if they have a sockpuppet tag or a spam warning they'll still be kept, because they have an actual, defined usefulness, rather than some hypothetical mainspace-related concern (why we're storing what's apparently critical details about article development on the talk pages of indef blocked users, I have no idea). As I said, over 90% of the pages have 10 or fewer revisions, suggesting a few warnings and a block notice. Even for the pages with more than 100 revisions, 4/9 are almost entirely useless. The pages are also kept for a month after the last edit before deletion. Mr.Z-man 16:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Depending on the severity of behavior a new vandal / sock account is probably blocked within 5-20 talk page revisions. It would be interesting to see what the distributino really is. But we can't assume it is uniform over time or across different types of blocks / circumstances. Wikidemon (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The full distribution:

revisions	pages
>=100	7
>=90, <100	1
>=80, <90	1
>=70, <80	1
>=60, <70	1
>=50, <60	3

revisions	pages
>=40, <50	11
>=30, <40	14
>=20, <30	38
>=10, <20	179
>0, <10	2,374

Over 90% have less than 10 revisions, and 97% have less than 20. Mr.Z-man 16:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Please keep them

(I am splitting this section again, becomes quite big)

Can we please stop discussing whether these pages can be speedily deleted, it really does not serve any purpose, and though for most of us the damage done by deletion of user talkpages is minimal (most don't care, don't use and don't see the use of them), for some cases that damage is significant, and creates a lot of extra work (which then relies totally on (local) admins).

1. As Abd pointed out above, some indef blocked users come back, and then the talkpages have to be undeleted.
2. With editors who have besides a disruptive past also a productive past, the talkpage may contain in old revids discussions which have influenced policies, guidelines or page content. Deletion of that data hides the information from non-admins, and makes reconstruction of such discussions impossible
3. The editors were blocked for a reason, deleting the pages also hides the reasons, which may still be of interest somewhere.
4. In similarity with the earlier discussions about IP user talkpages, sometimes the editors are part of a, as yet unidentified, sockfarm. E.g. 213.59.221.0/24 contains 15 identified cross wiki spammers of cube2007.com (socks of Geri2), which ones were warned for that action here (admins, please log out before trying to find them)? Now do the same (cross-wiki) excercise on 89.216.66.0/24 .. Having a list of the accountnames in the latter quickly shows which are blue-links, and so can be checked if those page-histories contain warnings pertaining the issue we are checking.

On the other hand, editors who have not been indef blocked, but have left don't have their pages deleted? Even if they only have performed vandalism. So pages of editors who may have been useful in the past are deleted, and those of which users have long left and are nothing but useless edits are left there. While just those that are blocked are more relevant (in terms of why they were blocked) then those run-of-the-mill vandalism accounts.

It is easy to find which accounts did something, but if and when they were warned/blocked is a totally different issue. That is no matter of an edit count, a count of revisions of the talkpage, if the editors have been linked to somewhere (which count is for the IPs in the 213.59.221.0/24 range: 0; the case was handled on meta). They were tagged as socks (which did not happen with the IPs used by Geri2; again, the case was handled on meta). Etc. etc.

So, in conclusion, please, don't delete old user talkpages where the editor has been involved in some form of coordinated or larger scale vandalism, POV pushing or spamming. And as there is no real gain in deletion, and the pages may be useful to some people on wikipedia, and it is very difficult to decide or to put into rules which accounts can be deleted under a CSD, please do not delete them at all. These discussions are valuable to some of us, and deleting them a) hides them, and b) makes it completely rely on (local!) admins to do certain investigations. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I am going to add, I am all for a proper way of archiving them, or 'blanking and replacing with a standard template'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I should note (again) that spam-related pages (anything with a spam warning template or in one of the subcategories of Category:User talk pages with spam warnings as of a couple weeks ago) is now kept. As are all the pages with a sock template (or any of these templates on the talk page or the userpage and any talk page with more than 100 edits (though based on the distribution above, this could probably be lowered). Also, indef-blocked IPs are re-categorized for further review. Mr.Z-man 16:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, spam related talk pages are not perfectly recognisable by the tags on them .. XLinkBot puts a warning for people adding example.com, which is often more a vandalism edit then spam, while many cases (see the talkpages of the spammers in 89.216.66.0/24, all the edits of this range that the range were warned for are spam-edits, though there is (last time I checked) only one warning using a spam-template!). I am sorry, whatever criteria you apply, all these editors should simply be scrutinised by eye. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, fine, people want to keep thousands of pages of garbage around every month? Whatever. I don't have time to keep repeating these arguments every time a couple people get a bee in their bonnet. The bot is now disabled. Pages won't be deleted and they won't be removed from the category automatically for any reason. If anyone wants these deleted, its fully manual review from now on. Have fun. Mr.Z-man 11:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User pages of once good faith mainspace contributors. Consensus?

I suggest that the above reveals a consensus that there is not a consensus to speedily delete the talk pages of once good faith mainspace contributors who were subsequently indef blocked. I think there is even not a consensus to speedily delete even the userpages of the once good faith mainspace contributors who were subsequently indef blocked.

The lack of consensus for speedy deletion means that speedy deletions of such pages should not occur, even if previously such deletions were routine.

There should be no insinuation read that any past such deletions were in any way “wrong”. It was policy, albeit unwritten, at the time, but things change. I suggest that things need to change because these unwritten policies have scalability problems, as wikipedia, its number of editors, and the number of administrators grows.

Existing unwritten deletion policy needs to be recorded, so that can be understood, discussed, and tuned. Obviously, clear CSD criteria will make it easier for the not-to-be-denied, and quite valuable, deletion scripts/bots.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Deprecating GFDL 1.2-only as a valid image license on en.wiki

A discussion at Template talk:GFDL-1.2-en, which was advertised on the Village Pump and in the Signpost, has reached the consensus to deprecate GFDL 1.2-only as a valid image license on the English Wikipedia. (The German Wikipedia also did this back in November.) I wanted to advertise this here as well, to give everyone a chance to raise concerns before it is implemented. Our plan so far is to replace the existing {{GFDL-1.2-en}} and {{GFDL-1.2}} templates with the following:

If you have any thoughts or suggestions, please raise them here. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify the relevance of this here - if the proposal goes through as above, then F3 will need rewording to incorporate images which have been tagged as GFDL-1.2-only for more than five days. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'd deprecate all GFDL-only as image licenses, because it's terrible for reusing images. But that's another day's work. tfeSil (aktl) 08:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Well assuming the comunity doesn't go insane and vote down the new licensing scheme everyting licensed as GFDL 1.2 or later will soon be converted to GFDL 1.3 / CC-by-SA-3.0 per meta:Licensing update, after wich I do agree that new GFDL only material should be depreciated. --Sherool (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for an expansion of A7

A7 currently covers articles on people who are blatantly non-notable. It seems this should be expanded to cover lists whose only entries are people who, if articles were created about them, would be subject to A7 deletion. An example of such an article is Burswood guitar users (see also AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burswood guitar users). This article seems to have been created by a non-notable person to list himself and a close relative who both have guitars manufactured by the same obscure manufacturer, hence it comes (as far as I see it) in the same vanity-article class as the other types of article listed in criterion A7. Any comments? JulesH (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaning against this proposal. I think of lists as a safe haven for information that doesn't belong in any particular article. For instance, it might be useful to have a list of schools in a particular school district, even if none of the schools was itself notable. Or a list of songs by a notable musician, even if none of the songs was notable enough to have its own article. --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Why should people be different? --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Because the guideline for lists (WP:SAL) requires lists of people to always have articles. JulesH (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Does this pass criterion 3 at the top of this page? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I too would be against this. There's little harm to the 'pedia if we prod such lists instead of speedying them, and much benefit to having the extra time to really see if the list really has no encyclopedic potential. If the list is a blatantly obvious deletion, it can always be an IAR speedy.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

We have many perfectly reasonable lists for which most or all entries do not themselves deserve articles. For example, lists of paintings by a famous artist (how many paintings have articles?). Likewise, one could imagine a list of - for example - minor league sports players, where most of them don't deserve articles but the list is just fine. Dcoetzee 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is that such lists are not fine; see WP:SAL. JulesH (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I also would oppose this type of expansion of A7. Determining whether a list is populated with "people who, if articles were created about them, would be subject to A7 deletion" requires speculation, since we cannot know whether an article is A7-able until it is created. Let's remember that A7 does not judge the notability of a topic, but rather the presence or absence of an assertion of significance. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting objection, and I'm not sure I see a solution for it. JulesH (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

this does not occur frequently enough to be worth the expansion, given the problems. It's hard enough to be sure one at a time. Anything really abusive can be dealt with by the provision for vandalism or test. DGG (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

New article category

I propose a new criteria for BLPs that have been in Category:Unreferenced_BLPs (current population 12916) for more than 3 months. As these articles fail both the spirit and the letter of the policy on biographies of living people, they should not be kept indefinitely. 3 months is ample time for authors to provide some sourcing. We currently do the exact same thing for images, albeit within a shorter time frame. I believe this criteria is:

• Objective - any editor can determine whether an article has been unsourced for 3 months or not.
• Uncontestable - the WP:BLP policy clearly does not intend completely unsourced BLPs to exist indefinitely.
• Frequent - the category population has risen by 3000 in the 3 weeks I have been watching it.
• Non-redundant - no other applicable criteria exist.

I think that tagging and deletion would initially need to be phased either by initial title letter, or oldest first so that after a few months we are down to tagging new unsourced articles, and giving that author 3 months to fix the sourcing. Kevin (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So would that be like "A10. An article on a living person with no reliable citations at all that has been tagged as such for at least a month"? ViperSnake151 02:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much. A recent discussion at WP:AN suggested 3 months as the time frame. Personally, I'm in favor of a week, but I also think it is reasonable to allow more time for fixing. Kevin (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I should note here that Category:Unreferenced BLPs is missing about 30,000 biographies by my estimate. (So a proposed new criterion certainly meets the frequency requirement.) The overall proposal looks good to me. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree and think this proposal is a solid one. The status quo just isn't working and we need firmer measures to control the amount of crap building up in biographies. Removing unsourced ones is a good step. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• I like this idea. There's a potential conflict with area-specific guidelines for "presumed notability" (WP:ATHLETE comes to mind as the type of thing where arguments would arise), but this is an obstacle that can certainly be overcome. BLP is important; this suggestion should advance. Townlake (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

We should not make any judgement about notability in applying this criteria. A source that meets WP:RS would be the only criteria. Kevin (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I'm just trying to think through the practical rollout of this. In cases like this one, the argument will come up that since this gentleman was a player in the National Basketball Association, he's presumptively notable and therefore ought to have an entry even if no RSs are immediately added to the article... because that's the way WP:ATHLETE has worked for X amount of time. All I'm saying it this issue will come up and should be addressed proactively. Townlake (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important to emphasise here that notability is a non-issue; we don't keep copyvios of articles on potentially notable people, for instance. So, just because that chap is notable, doesn't mean we keep an unreferenced BLP article around about him. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC).

This is an excellent suggestion. I should point out that the problem with "presumed notability" for certain kinds of BLP shouldn't be one: if no reliable sources whatsoever can be found on a person, then there should not be an article. If sources are found, then the article is not deleted by that criterion. — Coren ^(talk) 03:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A couple of points launching from Vipersnakes151's proposed language above: Firstly, remember that G10 (attack pages) already exists, so we don't need to cover anything that would already be covered by it. Secondly, people will argue about what constitutes an article on a living person, so a BLP speedy criterion should restrict itself specifically to nomenclative articles like Jimmy Wales or Joseph Schmoe. If someone tries to game this by moving an article to, e.g., Odious sexual perversities of Joseph Schmoe, G10 and AfD will still exist to deal with it. Secondly, speedy deletion should not be used for articles with even one reliable source, and especially shouldn't ever be used to checkmate an edit war over the reliability of sources, so a BLP criterion needs to be fairly liberal about what sourcing is acceptable - remembering that AfD exists for anything remotely controversial. Thirdly, A BLP criterion should not be used as an IAR substitute for A7 (no indication of importance) or G11 (spam) either, so a time delay of some sort (X days without sourcing, where X is large) is vital. Having said all of that, I support the basic kernel of this proposal - the fact is that we do have too many BLPs that are unsourced or practically so, and there is more than one good reason to get rid of them. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• I fully support this idea, it addresses a continuing problem of the utmost importance. MBisanz ^talk 04:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• I also support this idea. While this won't completely solve our BLP problem, it will let us prune away some of the more marginal articles so that we can better concentrate our efforts on others. I also agree with interpreting "sources" in the loosest possible context, and having a lengthy (3 months or 90 days) time limit to give editors some time to add sourcing to articles that can potentially be sourced. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC).

I've suggested this before, but, I never thought it would be acceptable. I still think you might have problems getting it through. So, I'd suggest the following sweeteners, which might help more inclusionist minded people to accept it:

1. Any deletion under this criteria is also summarily reversible by any administrator if the administrator or another editor is immediately willing to reference the article to a WP:BLP compliant state.--Scott Mac (Doc) 08:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Before there are any deletions, some bot should crawl through all the BLPs which are marked as totally unreferenced and lack any external links, and then place a warning on the creator's page to say "an BLP you created may be unreferenced, and could be deleted, please ensure the the article has basic references"
3. We bring this in VERY gently. Actually, I'd advise initially against summary deletion - better that if an article is marked as unreferenced for three months, it is then tagged with Template:Unsourced deletion - which gives as further week for sourcing before deletion. Editors can remove the tag only if they source the article. (not so sure about this one)
4. I'd echo, indeed I suggested already, that this be trialled with articles beginning A-C.

--Scott Mac (Doc) 08:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• I really like your third idea, but I would call it {{prodBLP}} and change it somewhat. ;-) It would be exactly the same as {{prod}}, except that in order to contest the prod notice or deltion via prod, it must provide references for all statements, or be stubified in such a way that all statements are sourced. -Atmoz (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• I support this as well, with the remark that there should be a grace period (say three months as well) between the acceptance of this rule (and the widespread communication of it), and the application of it, since we have a serious backlog of unsourced BLPs (going back to August 2006), which would mean that without grace period, we could immediately delete everything tagged before 2009, which is some 5,000 articles (most of them on soccer players). I also believe that once it is clear that the consensus here is in favour of the A10 category, this should be posted at the WP:VPP for more widespread discussion before implementation. Fram (talk) 08:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Reasonable plan, although I share Doc G's caveats. tfeSil (aktl) 08:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• This is the only way we can fix the unreferenced BLPs without flooding AfD. I think the current backlog should be fed through a bot that limits the number of taggings and as Doc suggested it could also notify the author. At a rate of 200/day it would take just over 2 months depending o to eliminate the backlog. BJ^Talk 09:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think this is a good idea. We already have mechanisms in place to deal with them. People see to forget that an article, that exists for 3 months, can easily be deleted via WP:PROD which allows possible rescue. There is no need for a new criterion because there is no problem it can fix, that cannot be fixed by the current deletion policy. Those articles can be separated (broadly speaking) in 3 categories:
  • Negative unsourced BLP => we got G10 for that
  • Neutral unsourced BLP without indication for notability => we got A7
  • Neutral unsourced BLP with indication of notability => PROD

  The proposal here does not explain why the current way cannot be applied to these articles as well, nor why it needs to be a speedy criterion. I'm suggesting we just PROD those articles instead, the effectiveness is the same, but it allows both rescuing and community input without having to go through AFD. Regards Why oh Why? 09:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with PROD is that the tag can be removed for any reason, and then cannot be replaced. I can imagine that many of the articles would then end up not being deleted and remaining unsourced, or having to be taken to AfD. Kevin (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that as a problem, quite the opposite in fact. If someone removes the tag, then they are signaling that they are disagreeing with deletion and that wider community input is needed. But from all experiences, PRODs are left in place in the most of cases and if the creator has not worked on the article for 3 months, it's unlikely they will contest it. I'd say that would leave approximately 2-5% of those articles for AFD, which AFD can handle just fine. If there is need for discussion (which contesting a prod would indicate), then discussion should take place. But the harm of having that discussion is not greater than the harm of losing those potentially valuable articles. And I see no gain in speedy-deleting after 3 months which forces us to create such a criterion because if they really contain negative unsourced BLP, it's already covered anyway and that's the only kind of BLP that needs to be deleted quickly and without discussion. Regards SoWhy 10:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Prod is no use, since people say "it's seems notable" and unprod, without sourcing. Afd is pointless, since the point is not whether the subject merits an article, but whether the current unsourced article should kept. It isn't that we want deletions here, it is that we want to say "unsourced BLPs are unacceptable - if it isn't sourced within three months, it is removed until someone is willing to source it".--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Prod has no teeth and therefore lacks effectiveness. If the creator of an article removes the prod without actually addressing the issues we still need to resort to an AFD where the potential of an article is usually brought into the mix rather than its current state, which often makes articles linger for months or even years. I'd prefer a speedy deletion criterion that keeps out any unsourced material at all. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• I support the proposal. PROD is not effective since anybody can remove a PROD without giving any reason, or making any fix. Regarding A7, it seems absurd that we permit unsourced articles simply because they make an unsubstantiated claim of notability. This proposal encourages BLP creators to go back and source the articles they already made, before they make more unsourced BLPs. It takes far less time for the person making an article to source it, than it does for somebody unfamiliar to come in, and find sources, with little to go on. --Rob (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Then your point is to change A7 to "delete articles without unsourced claims"? Because else you are supporting creating a new criterion to circumvent an existing one. SoWhy 10:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Doc. Hiding T 11:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per SoWhy. We have PROD already, which works well, and should just be used in these cases - along with more people classifying and unprodding a new flood of BLP prods. Just because people could remove the prods from tons of BLPs, and not do anything to improve the articles, which then escape AfD does not mean this actually happens or would happen in a significant fraction of cases. Unprodders very frequently do some work on the articles and unsourced articles which survive AfDs are generally improved and sourced during the process. John Z (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • So, if I prod 5,000 articles this afternoon, that's OK? Indeed this proposal is much less than prod, since it proposes that users get 3 months to reference an article - if prod was used it would be 5 days.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Why wouldn't it? PROD has no taggings-per-day limit, has it? This proposal is more than prod because while there is a 3 month deadline, users are not notified about the deletion and other users will not see from an article if and when it will be deleted. With PROD, the creator is notified and everyone viewing the article knows they have 5 days to save it. Regards SoWhy 11:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
      • We could have a bot tag all BLPs marked as unreferenced for 2 months as liable to deletion, and the same bot could warn the creator - so that would do the same thing, and give far far more warning to everyone than prod.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
      • The creator does not have to be notified when an article is prodded. It's a common courtesy, but it isn't a necessity, and point of fact, it's a common courtesy that the creator is notified when an article is tagged as a speedy, so I don't really understand your grounds of concern. I think if someone were to prod all of these articles in one go, the accusations of WP:POINT would be tremendous. Hiding T 12:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
      • And let us not forget that article creators are specifically told that "An article without references may quickly be deleted." when they create their article, so let's not act like there is no warning. Hiding T 12:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Because with speedy deletions, by the time the creator reads the message, it might already be deleted. With PROD, this is unlikely. If one wants to create a PROD-like system for BLPs, i.e. tagging them for deletion for 2 months, that's fine with me, but then the discussion is wrong here. It's no speedy deletion if the creator has a fixed amount of time after tagging, it's a proposed deletion then. One of the essential points of speedy deletions is that the creator may not have the time to realize that the article is tagged before it's deleted and that admins can and will delete articles on sight that fit the criteria. Suggest a prod-like system where articles get tagged for deletion for say 3 months with a nice "this article will be deleted after 1 July 2009" on them and I'm all for it. But I'm against a speedy deletion criterion because it does not fit within the policy. Regards SoWhy 12:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
          • We already have a number of di- criteria where things get deleted only after some delay. This would be another, with a clearly defined criterion. --Amalthea :  Chat  12:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
            • Exactly. I'm not sure I understand the objections, or at least I'm thinking they've all been considered and met. Hiding T 12:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
            • But the other's fit well with the policy. Creating a criteria that effectively discards A7 and G11 is problematic. Instead I'd suggest a new PROD-like policy on this to clearly seperate it from the speedy deletions which have completely different objectives. SD is for cleaning up the mess, not for deleting on grounds of missing sources or suchlike, hence A7's wording. How about Wikipedia:BLP deletion instead (could be called BIODEL^^)? SoWhy 12:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
              • It doesn't discard anything and it fits in with what we already do here. SD is not for cleaning up the mess, it is for deleting items which do not need discussion. Unless you are suggested it needs to be discussed as to whether a BLP has references, I can't understand your objections or proposals. I doubt this criteria will throw up many more contentious deletions than current methods. Hiding T 12:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
              • (ec)I'd think it complements A7 & G11. They still "clean up the mess", and do so quickly. The less messy, but still highly problematic unsourced BLPs will get past them. The main difference between PROD and CSD I see is that PROD accepts any rationale that would be grounds for deletion at AfD, as long as the proponent thinks it's uncontroversial. CSD has narrowly defined criteria where, unless an article is changed, it will non-controversially deleted. With the case at hand, we have a very narrow criterion an article has to match. This fits in with CSD more than with PROD, in particular since we already have some delayed criteria.
                Also, I imagine that this criterion will get a much reduced grace period (like 7 days) once the backlog is cleared in several months, so that it would fit even better with the other "di-" criteria we already have. I'm not sure if that's the plan though. --Amalthea :  Chat  12:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
                • Funny how the two of you disagree whether SD is to clean up the mess or not. But the point is, all our current article criteria are for pages that cannot be salvaged into something worth keeping (or where it's illogical to assume it in cases of A7 and A9 which are very strict on the possibility of notability or where it's not needed in case of A2). But no criterion currently covers any pages that can be salvaged into pages worth keeping. I think adding such a new criterion does not fit with the others which explicitly targets only non-salvageable pages. On the other hand, PROD specifically is for pages which can be salvaged maybe but where noone is doing it, so the proposed criterion fits there much better than it would here. Hence my suggestion to create a separate process for this to avoid mixing elements that are not fitting together very well. Regards SoWhy 13:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
                  • G5 and G11 cover articles that could be salvaged. Hiding T 13:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
                    • I was talking about article criteria. And G11 does not cover those articles actually, because strictly speaking you can only G11 a page that is nothing but advertising, else you can easily remove the spam and leave a valid stub. Regards SoWhy 13:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
                      • G5 and G11 cover articles, so they are article criteria. And G11, by its own definition applies as I said, containing as it does the caveat "would need to be fundamentally rewritten". But I think we've been around this one enough. I think all your objections are met, you don't. There's not that much more to say. Hiding T 13:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• I'd like it if the page were visually tagged for deletion during the time anyway, so I think somethink like {{di-unsourced-blp}} "delete if it's been tagged for 3 months and is an unsourced BLP" would be best. This would categorize them neatly, tag them appropriately, and give all interested parties enough time to turn it into a WP:BLP compliant article or stub. The tagger should notify the author as with other db- and di- criteria. The tag would probably only be appropriate on "pure" biographies: if an article only contains some biographic material it should be dealt with differently.
  PROD and a time-delayed CSD aren't that different, as we've discussed here before. One of the main differences is that a CSD tag is not be removed if it clearly applies. "Sufficient references" would still of course be a judgement call, but it can't be removed from a BLP article with no sources at all.
  I very much agree with Scott that this needs to be brought live gently, to the point that only a certain number of unsourced BLPs from that category should be tagged each day (semi-automatically by some dedicated person or bot). --Amalthea :  Chat  12:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• I think (at least) initially, this should be applied only to brand new BLPs, so within a few days of creation it should be tagged as {{di-unsourced-blp}}, with a clear warning given on the article, and on the user's talk page. --Rob (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Why shouldn't it apply to already created articles? Hiding T 12:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• • • The problem is with swamping those who would wish to fix rather than delete.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't fully follow. What would stop us automating a bot to also tag ten (for arguments sake) articles from the backlog per day? Would that swamp us? Or, to grant a six month exemption to the current backlog? Six months would be more than plenty time. Hiding T 13:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Oh, I'd delete the lot tomorrow. However, you'll not get consensus for it when so many are involved. The first step is to stem the flow, so that the backlog does not increase. Then stage two is to try to work on the backlog. One step at a time, and you take more people with you.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Fair enough. I'm probably too used to being one of the people dragging their heels, that I kind of think if I'm on board... Hiding T 13:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed, grandfathering this in, might be best. A policy that says if an unreferenced BLP is created, after a few hours it can be tagged as such - the tag will invite sourcing and warn that it will be deleted in in x days unless sourced, and the creator will also be invited to source it. The tags will add it to a category, so people can patrol that. Even after deletion, the article can be recreated or summarily undeleted, if someone offers to source it. (We can then, very very gently, deal with the backlog. Perhaps allowing many many months before any of the backlog is deleted - indeed ideally nothing here would be deleted for lack of sourcing.).--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Scott Mac (Doc); having a kind of "it will be deleted in X days unless it is fixed" type of thing would probably be best. Regardless of how it is handled or what the time frame is, the pages should definitely be restored upon request to allow for sourcing. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• I support this proposed criterion's creation. I was going to stress the importance of including a stipulation that such speedy deletions be reversed upon the request of a user who wishes to add reliable sources, but Scott MacDonald beat me to it. This, of course, should have a time limit attached (e.g. the article will be re-deleted if the sources aren't added within three days). —David Levy 13:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Concrete proposal

A10:Any biography of a living person, created after 1st April 2009, which has no credible sources whatsoever, and has been tagged with {unreferenced BLP deletion} for at least 5 days. Administrators should check that the creator has been given adequate notice. (Note that any article deleted under this criterion may be summarily undeleted by any administrator if any editor indicates a willingness to source the article).

Template {unreferenced BLP deletion} should read: "This article on a living person lacks any sourcing. Please edit this article to provide sources. If this article is not sourced by [day-month-year] it may be subject to deletion. Do not remove this template unless sources have been provided.".

OK, how about it?

• The deletion time is the same as prod, and the article is undeleted on request (the same as prod).
• It is grandfathered in (we can think about the 30,000 backlogged unreferenced later - but let's stem the tide)
• Creators and other are given well adequate time to provide sourcing
• We are only asking for the most basic sourcing here.
• The idea is not to delete things, but to create a new atmosphere where sourcing is required.
• If any good article does get deleted, any admin can undelete without any process or discussion. He just needs to say "sourcing this"

--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support. It might be worthwhile to have previously-tagged pages also deleted over time, as long as they are restored temporarily on request as you describe here to allow for sourcing but, as you said, this can be discussed after we see how the process works with new pages. –Drilnoth (T • C) 14:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Neutral: I could actually go either way, seeing Colonel Warden's comment below. Deleting good faith material just because it is unreferenced at the time isn't a good idea; prodding it would make more sense if deletion is warranted. –Drilnoth (T • C) 14:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose User:SoWhy well explains above why this proposal is redundant - we already have ample means such as G10. The proposal might result in the mechanical deletion of good faith material such as John MacGregor, Baron MacGregor of Pulham Market and this would clearly not improve the project. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So source it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Indeed, I just did. Anyway, that article would not have been deleted - it would not be covered by this.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Did some more sourcing on John MacGregor, Baron MacGregor of Pulham Market, which kind of indicates to me why this proposal is a good thing. Hiding T 15:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody denies sourcing is a good thing. Butthis was better sourced than deleted,wasn't it? DGG (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup, and it was this proposal that motivated someone to do it. If you've got a more effective way of ensuring we don't keep increasing the number of unsourced biographies, then I'm all ears. But saying that an individual case can be fixed, misses the structural problem.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support, this isn't redundant and per all the comments in the preceding section, would clearly improve the project. Hiding T 15:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Withdraw support. Based on people going out and prodding rather than sourcing, I do not believe this criteria would be utilised in the correct manner. My apologies, but I can no longer support this with good faith. When people are actively adding prod tags as opposed to adding easily found sources, there's something wrong. Hiding T 10:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Restore support. Hiding T 12:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support, even if it is redundant, it is a good idea. Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose SoWhy explains it pretty much. We already have processes that cover this. This is a solution in search of a problem. -Djsasso (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• The way I read it, SoWhy is in agreement that we don't have processes to cover this. The user wants a different solution, using something more like prod. I don't see why we should reject this idea because it has the wrong name. Hiding T 15:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yup, let's make it happen. We can discuss renaming it later. I don't care what we call it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support. This seems mostly redundant with the idea of just systematically PRODding unreferenced BLPs; but such systematic PRODding seems harder to actually get done; a new CSD criterion will be used. So a new CSD criterion, whilst redundant in principle, is thus not redundant in practice. It may not be pretty, but it's (probably) better than doing nothing. Rd232 ^talk 15:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support would be a stronger support without the grandfathering, waiting period, and undelete on request. BLPs should be sourced or shot. But this is a step in the right direction. -Atmoz (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - not sure. Like it in principle, but I'm unhappy about the grandfathering, if only because it creates two classes of BLP. Will ponder further Fritzpoll (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support, though I'm not clear on the difference between this and PROD, given the five-day wait period. I'd much prefer it without that. Agree with Atmoz that BLPs should be reliably sourced or shot. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The key difference is the tag can't be removed just because someone wants the article kept - to avoid deletion you have to source the article. Thus we establish the principle that unsourced BLPs must be sourced or deleted - without mass deleting the existing backlog (which, unfortunately, will not get consensus). --Scott Mac (Doc) 16:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The biggest problem is how much sourcing is enough? Its a completely POV criteria. -Djsasso (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Any legitimate sourcing is better than nothing at all. The proposal doesn't require a particular level of sourcing, just "more than none." Mr.Z-man 16:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Most such bios are trivial to source the basic facts. At the very least they should go to prod or AfD where the community can see them and have a chance at them. Many editors come here once and never again, but do manage to add a good article. If we do this we shall be deleting a great deal of sourceable work. Perhaps we should add the criterion. "If the administrator has himself made a thorough effort to source them using appropriate resources for the type of article,and demonstrates that on the article talk page." I do not think that many admins would actually be willing to do that. The provision credible source will be interpreted much too broadly,as there is not really agreement on such things enough for a speedy procedure. A good proposal, if what you want to do is throw out the baby with the bathwater. Colonel Warden has it right. DGG (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • That argument is falsified by experience. We have a growing number of utterly unsourced BLPs - and simply saying to those concerned about this "go source them yourselves" is simply not working. It has never worked. Here the onus is reversed. If people want us to retain an ever-growing number of BLPs, then they need to start maintaining them in an acceptable manner.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked some of the older ones, and found some people who might not be notable, but no actually unsourced problematic article. The one possibly dubious one had sources, but the ed. forgot to add a "references" tag, so they were not displayed. We are dealing with an almost nonexistent problem. DGG (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC) I also checked three dozen from the last two months. I found a bumber who may not be notable, but no actual BLP problems otherwise. DGG (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• As long as care is taken to notify the creator, they can always ask for the material to be undeleted if necessary. We can't avoid choosing between Type I and Type II errors (deleting too much, keeping too much), but deletion is always temporary anyway, except in AFD cases where the subject itself is rejected for inclusion (even then there's Deletion Review). In BLP cases we should draw a different balance between deleting poor material (unreferenced is poor) and keeping it public for potential improvement, hence this criterion directed at unreferenced BLPs. Rd232 ^talk 16:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

deletion is not temporary for new editors who do not know our baroque procedure. Keeping is much morereversible than deletion, and thatsolves the problemof choosing between I and II. DGG (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

All it takes an appropriate user warning template for this criterion. There's no need for the procedure it should describe to be baroque at all - eg contacting the CSD nominator or deleting admin or if that fails posting at DRV. Really needn't be a big deal. Rd232 ^talk 16:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If I told something like that to someone complaining about their bio on OTRS, I would expect to have my access revoked. Mr.Z-man 16:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Strong support - if sources exist, they can be added to the article. The point is that this proposal suggests a long enough timescale for sources to be found and added. Were this a standard speedy criterion of "tag it, wait for an admin, deleted" like most others, I would have reservations. I think there is also enough time for the standard of credibility to be assessed and debated if there is any doubt. This solves a long-standing problem Fritzpoll (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. Let the admin do so before deleting. DGG (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Find a damn source. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. Let the admin do so before deleting. We're supposed to at least passable content creators, right? DGG (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Admins are supposed to be, well, admins, not Last Line Of Defence Against Ever Deleting Anything. Rd232 ^talk 16:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No, we are indeed the last line of defence against deletion. That's exactly what the mop is for. Deleting, after checking. Deleting problem articles is almost all I do with the admin buttons--just like you--check my log DGG (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Let those who want to keep it, source it. Telling people who are concerned about BLP implications that the only way they get to avoid unreferenced BLPs is to go about sourcing them all, is quite unacceptable. That policy has totally failed to stem the rise in unreferenced BLPs. You are arguing for an idea that has demonstrably been falsified by 8 years of experience. Enough is enough.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. While I'm a "must be sourced fiend", I'm not comfortable with this solution. Ultimately, I think it punishes the reader by removing information just because a couple of editors (the person who wrote the article, the person who tagged it, and the person who deleted it) were too lazy to source it. If this goes through, I doubt I'll be deleting any of those speedies.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, but often we punish not the reader but the subject of the article, and that is far worse. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 17:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    • This won't fix that. Only requiring every statement in every BLP to be sourced, along with flagged revisions, will fix that. I challenge everyone who is spending time on this debate to go find 5 unsourced BLPs and either fix them or nominate them for deletion. I've got my first one done, only 4 to go.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
      • It is a long way from "this won't finally solve the problem" to "this isn't worth doing". [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 10:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - We can't just say "Well, it doesn't look like an attack, so its probably fine." I've seen several cases where articles that looked fine contained false statements for very long periods of time until someone familiar with the subject noticed, or the subject complained. The current "notability-centric" system is entirely inadequate for this problem, and the amount of unsourced BLPs and other articles is increasing at an alarming rate. Mr.Z-man 16:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per DGG. Jheald (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unsourced BLPs are not actually a problem if it is all uncontroversial. An article that is 99% sourced and 1% libel is much worse. We do not get perfect articles by forbidding anything less than perfect. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "Uncontroversial" is a matter of opinion. What might be uncontroversial to the recent changes patroller looking over each diff for 5 seconds before moving on might be blatantly untrue and harm-causing to the subject. This proposal wouldn't preclude deletion of BLPs that do have sources or make it harder to delete libel, I don't quite understand your objection. Mr.Z-man 17:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    • "Uncontentious" would be a better word. What I mean is that an unsourced BLP is not much more likely to hurt anyone than an article that has at least one source. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support This isn't a solution to the BLP problem, but it is a good and necessary idea. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 17:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - as a representative of the inclusionist troll guild. ;) We'll probably need to quibble over the word "credible", but otherwise a template - wait - del format is perfectly reasonable, and if the template adds to a category of "blps that'll be deleted if not sourced", they can be easily fixed by those so inclined. WilyD 17:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Completely unsourced biographies of living people have no place on Wikipedia. If an article (a biography of a living person) goes three months without any sources, it should be deleted. If a legit article gets deleted, why is that the end of the world? Couldn't it just be recreated when someone could be arsed to find a fucking source? People! Our biographies of living people are probably our most "dangerous" articles. We must do something. Speedy deleting these articles does not mean there can never be an article on the subject. When sources are provided, it can have a shot. Until then, what positive benefit is there for having potenially troublesome biographies of living people in the encyclopedia. Delete hard with no prejudice towards recreation with sources in the future. Good first step. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support It helps convey the message that the project is serious about quality and verifiability. Given enough notice and a cat for concerned editors to find articles to rescue, I see no problem. It will only improve overall quality. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 17:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Although Hiding seems to think so, I'm not in support in general and certainly I oppose this suggestion of a new A10 to cover it. My proposal was a completely seperate process to CSD with much longer waiting periods before deletion. I might make a full proposal later today when I come home. My reasons for opposing this proposal are a.) does not fit CSD, b.) 5 days is too short and c.) this proposal aims for deletion of those articles rather than fixing them, which conflicts with WP:PRESERVE and WP:REMOVE. Our editing policy is towards keeping information and removing only what cannot be sourced. But there is no BLP I can think of that could not be cut down to a stub and not still be a valid article. If there are unsourced statements, they can be removed individually but never should a possibly verifiable article be deleted because of that. Because an article like "X is an American painter" can be a perfectly fine stub without having to be deleted for not having sources that specify that X exists.
  Yes, I understand that some articles might need to be deleted but I do not agree that it has to be done at a scale which needs a new criterion to cover it. There are good reasons we have WP:PROD and the proposed criteria is actually more strict than PROD; PROD can only be used when an article fails policy and guidelines, not only if it's unclear. Doc's suggestion would allow deletion for the simple possibility of not meeting those guidelines without any proof that they are in fact not verifiable. There is no reason to create a criteria that effectively is like PROD but without PROD's benefits and reasoning. On a side note, I don't think such a change that would replace PROD in large parts of target articles can be done with simple discussion here, it needs a much larger community input. Regards SoWhy 17:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Good one - David Gerard (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Only one verifiable source is needed to prevent this from being applied. Is that too much to ask going forward? -- Avi (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support - totally! - Alison ^❤ 17:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment:I've already mentioned above that I support the basic idea, but this iteration still needs to define what "a biography of a living person" is for the sake (and avoidance) of the WikiLawyers. It shouldn't link to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, either, despite that being the obvious fix, because that makes for an external dependency that editors would in have to read (in theory; in practice they'd just go with thier memory or their perception of what's acceptable). I suggested above that this ought to apply only to nomenclative articles (that is, naming a particular person); I still think that's a better standard, even if in excludes a few things. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per SoWhy. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support I'd rather support an alternative that allows for a broader criteria for deleting BLP articles. This criteria prevent previous (prior April 2009) entries without sources from being speedy deleted if they do not contain sources. Since they have been on site the longest then they should go first. As well, I think that having a stub of a single fact that the person existed is not necessary for a comprehensive encyclopedia since the content can be presented elsewhere. Allowing a vast number of these BLP articles has the potential for harm since we do not have adequate number of volunteers to monitor the articles. My strong preference would be for all BLP entries without sourcing for the majority of the content to be deleted with the possibility to be recreated once adequate sourcing is found. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support with caveats. I would prefer an addition: "created after 1st April 2009, or more than 90 days old,". It would be better to have a grace period than a full exemption for "grandfathered" articles. Additionally, this is probably better placed at WP:PROD than at WP:CSD. It is, in essence, a PROD with a stricter limitation for removing the template. (CSD is generally shoot on sight. PROD has the waiting period.) The first is important to me, but the latter is more a quibble. --Vassyana (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree it isn't enough. But something that "isn't enough" for BLP concerned people, while is perhaps acceptable to some BLP inclusionists might gain consensus. My aim would be to generate an atmosphere of less tolerance for unsourced BLPs - hopefully that would encourage sourcing of articles rather than deletion, but it will certainly begin to focus minds.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I was planning to propose wording that got rid of existing articles that did not have any sources for most of the content and were tagged for a week. No special warning to the creator is needed to delete since this is well past the time period necessary for them to return to the article and add sources. This would let us clear out the vast number of old articles without out sources for the majority of the content, and stop the addition of new articles without content. The reality is that we do not have the manpower to identify and monitor all BLP articles now. I don't see that changing any time soon. I want to reduce the number of articles we need to watch by only keeping the ones that are referenced articles, not including unreferenced stubs (which add no value to the reader beyond what a redirect would do) or poorly referenced start length articles (which have the large potential to be inaccurate, and some potential to actually cause harm to the person). FloNight♥♥♥ 18:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment I agree this is more PROD than SPEEDY like. Perhaps it should be moved? -- Avi (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Agree it could be better framed as a PROD, with removal of tag only if a source is provided. Also agree that complete grandfathering doesn't really make sense. Better to give a longer grace period after creation, but apply it to all BLPs, new and existing. I'd also challenge the inclusionists to come up with an upper limit on how long completely unsourced BLPs should be allowed - bearing in mind that unsourced BLPs existing for a long time are prima facie of low notability, and the unsourced WP article is probably relatively prominent on the internet. Rd232 ^talk 18:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Prod/speedy who cares what we call it, let's discuss the substance. I'm not at all proposed to dealing with the old BLPs - however I was looking for a starting point that might get consensus. Anything that involves tagging 30,000 articles and deleting a percentage of them will get a string of opposes. If you want to do that, can I ask you to propose a seperate supplemental/complementary idea later, so that you neither cause people to oppose this, nor split the support vote. (I personally will support any such proposal).--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support. +sj + 18:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

  A general caveat, since I don't like the fact that deletion always deletes the catalog record that someone once tried to create an article : I'd really like to see a catalog, open to human organization unlike the deletion log, of pages of all sorts that have been deleted, with relevant categories. Certainly any page that could be described as "may be a good article some day, but isn't yet and we need to clean up"... the original materials is often quite good and useful for anyone coming along to add to it later -- and totally invisible to those future editors. My suggestion below about a delay for applying G8 to newly deleted (and newly created) articles cuts at the same problem. +sj +

• Oppose. BLPs are not special. -- LondonStatto (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• hmm. So you wouldn't object to someone creating an unsourced LondonStatto? Rd232 ^talk 18:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Strong support. Avruch ^T 18:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Random section break

• Support - We'll finally stop the problem from growing. As long as people are creating verifiable BLPs, this proposal poses no threat, as they merely have to provide just one source for their information. The only good criticism I see far, is the proposal doesn't go far enough. But, that's not ground for rejection, only for a new proposal in the future. --Rob (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• oppose1)If you want to effectively prevent more casual editors from creating articles Citizendium is that way. 2)Once you've ajusted for effectively making it impossible for casual editors to create new articles can you show that sourcing actually helps at all? 3)Can you show that BLP issues in free articles is actually significant compared to edits to existing articles (remember you can't drive by create an article). Given the falling rate of new articles do you seriously think we can afford to put up more barriers to creation?Geni 18:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Imaginary problem There is no epidemic of unsourced BLPs. The huge number of ones in the most recent months category is due to the retrospective addition of tags to old articles. I checked a total of 50 from March. 48 of them were from 05 or 06. Almost all of them were either clearly notable athletes (including Olympians) and clearly notable politicians (including prime ministers). They were apparently added in batches and not sourced at the time. I checked about the same number of new bios from April 1 New Pages. 4 or 5 were abusive--and they had been already tagged for Speedy, and I deleted them accordingly. An equal number were unsourced and probably not notable, but routine careers, They should be checked and perhaps prodded, or dealt with as Spam and self-advertisement --but we already have speedy A7 and G11 to deal with that. But it does not seem urgent. There is a real problem, though: the addition of false information and abuse to existing sourced bios. Flagged revisions will do them, if it works. This proposal will have no effect on it whatsoever. I challenge the proposer to find me 5 articles from the last 5 days which are actually harmful and have not been caught. I challenge Flo in particular to find more than 1% of the unsourced articles from the backlist that are harmful (& where the harm was not from later additions) and have not been caught. (sourced but harmful articles that have not been caught , yes, those can be found. Neither this proposal nor her proposal addresses them at all.) DGG (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • One problematic BLP is enough to justify this addition to the criteria. Not 1%, Not 5... One. Full stop. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. ++Lar: t/c 18:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    • No it's not. Because new criteria need to address frequently arising problems, it says so at the top of this page. But can you name just one problematic BLP that is not covered by A7, G10, G11 or cannot be cut down to a non-problematic stub in line with WP:PRESERVE? SoWhy 18:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Those who don't fully understand the scope of BLP problems are destined to ignore them. --Ali'i 18:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm not claiming I do. But if you do, could you answer that question please? Regards SoWhy 19:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Hypothetical or actual? --Ali'i 19:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
            • I don't think we are here to solve hypothetical problems, there would be too many of them. So actual please. Apparently we have hundreds of those but all I checked randomly could easily be handled with the current system we have, mostly WP:BEFORE and WP:REMOVE in the editing policy. Regards SoWhy 19:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

To answer User:DGG, I looked at articles created March 9 (back of the NP log), and found 13 unsourced bios - User:Kevin/unsourced, not counting those that were moved or fell off the back of the log. Kevin (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Obvious corrolary of "do no harm"... unsourced == not needed until it's sourceable and sourced, there is no rush... As for Sj's idea of a catalog, that has merit enough to kick around and see if it can be made to work. ++Lar: t/c 18:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Random break

(note: this is so it is easier to edit)

• Support as a way of dealing with the BLP problem without the backlog that would ensue from flaggings. It's not a solution to the problem by any means, but its a good start. This extends from our policy on verification, since if an article isn't properly verified it should go. When a BLP isn't properly verified, it can do much more harm than the standard unsourced article. In the perfect Wiki, editors shouldn't be able to create articles without going through AfC (which would screen out the bad BLPs), but since we don't live in the perfect Wiki this is a suitable alternative. ThemFromSpace 18:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Describe in 140 characters or less wikipedia's reference code. See the problem?Geni 21:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose as written - per WP:BITE, and in agreement somewhat with User:DGG's comments, espcially to add in "If the administrator has himself made a thorough effort to source them using appropriate resources for the type of article,and demonstrates that on the article talk page." I could go along with allowing a ProD, and if "credible source" were defined as "reliable source" and "verifiable". More discussion may be needed, but this is a good start. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per DGG and Apoc. Joe 19:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - This is a non-speedy speedy, which makes no sense; and PROD serves this well enough now. I'm all for sources, but this seems to be burning down the village to save it. It's one thing to delete unsourced controversial material in a BLP article; quite another to delete entire articles, regardless of whether the unsourcedness has any whiff of controversy. TJRC (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Why should our reference work give information that has no sources? It makes it completely unreliable. We need to stop pretending that we are giving our readers good content when we're not. Going back later and looking for sources to reference the content is entirely backwards. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Most encyclopedias do not give sources for every article. Sources are great but it is perfectly possible that an unsourced article is great, while hundreds of sources can be sherrypicked and re-interpreted. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for two reasons.

1) As pointed out above we have a WP:PROD procedure that is designed for this sort of situation, i.e. where non-urgent deletion of articles can happen without discussion. In answer to the point made that anyone can remove a prod tag, is there any evidence that this prod tags get removed without explanation from unsourced BLPs frequently enough to satisfy criterion 3 at the top of this page? I don't see many AfDs created for that reason. If it does become a problem in the future we can deal with it then. Until that time we can give articles another five days if they have already been sitting here for three months.

2) Doing this, by treating all BLPs equally, would be a distraction from the primary purpose of WP:BLP, i.e. to protect people from harm. Today I noticed an article that the proposer of this criterion prodded for being an unsourced BLP for three months. Even if the article content was incorrect would having it on Wikipedia for an extra five days possibly do Mr Abbasov any harm? Would it damage him to say that he plays football and weighs 73kg? A simple Google search confirmed that the article was indeed incorrect, because it was out of date, but I was able to fix it with a source findable within seconds. Would the encyclopedia have been better if the article had been speedily deleted? Let's concentrate our efforts on the BLPs, or content about living people put into other articles, that have a potential to do harm, and can be handled by WP:CSD#G10, editing or oversight. As an example, I found an article few days ago about a 16-year-old that said she had performed in pornographic films, and an adminstrator (yes, an administrator) had put a prod tag on it for non-notability rather than delete it immediately. This proposed procedure will take away attention from such serious cases that need to be dealt with speedily. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I PRODded about 50 articles to try and answer the question of whether PROD could be used to deal with this problem, or if the PROD would just end up being removed without sourced being added. I understand that adding a source is better, but lately the number of unsourced BLPs has been growing by 200 articles per day, more than I can source. These have been tagged for months, with no action whatsoever. Kevin (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There are thousands of articles about people with false, outdated information. Having false, outdated, unverified information is harmful to both the reader and the person. I will no longer accept the lousy content that we are providing to our reader. Unless we remove it, it will be there giving us the false sense that we are doing a good job comprehensively providing information when we are not. My standards are higher than this and I'm not going to lower them. It is wrong to continue to pretend that we are doing a good job when we aren't.

I personally do not have the time, knowledge of the topic, or foreign language skills to search out content to fix these articles. I see no alternative to fix this problem except to delete them until a well sourced entry can be written. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

We got an edit policy that specifically tells us how to deal with those articles: Preserve as much information as possible and remove the parts which are unsourced. Could you please elaborate why this approach is inferior to deleting the article? I made an example edit, see here. It took me just a little bit longer than selecting "delete" but this way there is not all information lost and the article is not a BLP problem anymore. Regards SoWhy 20:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC

Actually it does cause problems to have a huge number of stub or pre-stubs. Because we do not have enough volunteers to review every edit in a timely manner some of these under watched articles are going to have unreverted vandalism, nonsense, and unsourced negative content added. We have no idea which article it will be, but we know that someones article is being changed to make it be unencyclopedic as we speak. If the content can be covered in another entry then there is absolutely no additional value to the reader for a stub over a redirect. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not an argument in favor of the proposal so much as it's an argument in favor of not having any articles at all on living people. Just because someone adds a source doesn't mean that there is no vandalism, nonsense, or unsourced negative content in the article.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Fabrictramp says it all. Every BLP can be vandalized in that way. After all, a BLP with 20 sources would not be covered by this criterion. We cannot go around deleting articles just because they are not watched by enough people. We would have to delete ~95% of all articles then. Yet the risk of someone just coming by and removing all those sources and adding some libel exists. Should we delete it preemptively? You need to explain why it's better to delete exactly and only those pages in Category:Unreferenced BLPs than to apply the editing policy to them and revert them to problem-free stubs or PROD them. Regards SoWhy 21:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That articles can be vandalized is irrelevant. If this goes through, admins should obviously take care to check if a better version is in the article history as always. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Huh? The point is that this is doing something rather than nothing. What we're currently doing is not working because we aren't really doing anything. This isn't a complete fix and I don't believe anyone is advertising as one, but its at least a visible step in the right direction. Mr.Z-man 21:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, humans have a common tendency to follow the "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore we must do it." line of reasoning. Unfortunately, if the "something" doesn't solve the problem, no progress is made. FWIW, I've worked on a number of BLPs today. Most were easily sourced. One was not, and prodded for lack of notability. 4 were copyvios and tagged for speedy. Yes, this proposal would have gotten rid of the bad ones, but it would have thrown out the good ones too, probably with more work than it took me to source them. I still wonder how many here took up my "fix five" challenge. I fear not many did.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how there cannot be a middle ground between "solving the problem" and "totally worthless." If we have 2 or 3 people each fixing 5 unsourced BLPs every day, we can basically break even at the current rate that they're being added, assuming that they're all properly tagged and categorized soon after creation. That still leaves the 30,000 from previous months and years. Mr.Z-man 16:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I initially wanted to dispute your numbers, but I just looked at the 36 articles in Category:Unreferenced BLPs from April 2009 and only 3 of them were created this year (1 2 3). The massive influx of the category in the recent 4 months apparently came from the tagging of the many old articles, which the current proposal wouldn't affect. --Amalthea 16:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The numbers came from a database query, looking for pages created in the last 30 days (still in the recentchanges table) that were also in Category:All unreferenced BLPs or both Category:Living people and Category:All articles lacking sources. There are 346 pages that meet those criteria in the last 30 days, which averages to about 81 per week, and of course that only counts the unsourced BLPs that were properly categorized and tagged. Mr.Z-man 19:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is it better to delete BLPs which are unreferenced for longer periods? Because unsourced BLPs existing for a long time are prima facie of low notability, and probably have few or no watchers; and the unsourced WP article is probably relatively prominent on the internet. Any harm done either by the creator or a drive-by editor may be (a) visible for a long time (b) unclear that it is harmful, since anybody happening by can't qickly check sources (c) high up in Google searches for that person, so any harm is very visible - unlike the same garbage being spewed on a no-name blog. WP:BLP exists for a reason and the logic behind it applies more strongly to people of low prominence, but sufficient notability for inclusion; and it's precisely these bios which are likely to be unreferenced. WP's desire to cover every living person of note needs to be weighed against the possible harm done to the subjects by giving platforms to people who dislike them. I've come across at least 2 bios, for example, which resulted in the subject being placed on a terrorist watchlist (Category:People placed on a terrorist watchlist as a result of false information on Wikipedia, anyone?). Should we place (a) 100% importance on this i.e. no BLPs at all; (b) 0%, let anybody libel anyone ("let God sort 'em out") or (c) strive to find an appropriate balance? Rd232 ^talk 22:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support in principle, but oppose the use of the word "credible" in the phrase "no credible sources whatsoever". CSD is not the place to judge whether a source is "credible" (which I'm assuming means reliable). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "Credible" was meant to exclude only the uncontroversial rubbish source - e.g. a link to a wiki-mirror, school essay on myspace. I'd happily add something to say that if there was a "judgement" to make, then this CSD does not apply.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    • If "credible" was clearly defined as you have indicated above, then that would address my concern. Thank you, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support in the spirit of BLP. We need something like this in place. PeterSymonds :  Chat  20:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. I do think that the proposal needs to be able to address the huge backlog, as well as future articles. Kevin (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • CommentI'm kind of appalled that backlog is being used to justify wholesale and expedited deletion of entire articles with no controversial material. TJRC (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Immedatism may be the watchword for BLPs, but often it takes time to find good sources, and any way you look at it, a stub that says "John Doe is a painter" isn't going to hurt anyone. By all means remove controversial unsourced material, even if it's barely controversial at all, per BLP policy - but everybody has something noncontroversial you can say about them. Besides that, it's easy to circumvent this criterion by merely claiming that the person is dead (without sources, who would know?) I also object strongly to the inherently subjective nature of the term "credible." Dcoetzee 20:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Good sources are not required here, just some source. We can tweek the word "credible" - it was only meant to exclude the obviously nonsensical.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

    I kind of assumed "credible" was a synonym for "reliable": i.e. WP:RS. However I don't think the precise wording/definition is the issue at the minute so much as the principle. Rd232 ^talk 22:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Great idea. Should have been implemented many moons ago. JBsupreme (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• On what basis?Geni 21:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support, but I do have reservations about "credible". --Kbdank71 20:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• On what basis?Geni 21:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support on what basis, or I have reservations on what basis? I'm not quite sure what you're asking. --Kbdank71 20:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: It's worth noting because of the grandfathering, this proposal will help us keep far more verifiable material than the current approach. It will get BLP-creators to fix the article, while it's still fresh in their mind (and they're still active with the project), and will encourage them to include sources in the future. Providing sources is easy if it's done at the time of creation, or shortly afterwards, by the creator, who should know where thy got their info. But, if we let that article sit around for months, or years, with no sources, and then re-visit it, the creator is probably gone, or forgot the article, lost interest, or just forgets where he found the information. At that point, it's often a huge burden for others to find sources. For some areas, it's very hard for somebody to find and evaluate good sources outside of the particular area of interest. So, the article gets PRODed and/or AFD'd, nobody is willing or able to fix it, and it gets deleted, losing all the work that went it to it. The editor who took a few weeks/months off Wikipedia, comes back, and finds their article gone. It seems opponents of this proposal make assume the only thing this proposal does is delete more articles, when in fact, it will fix more articles. --Rob (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that after the fact quick fixes like are done at Afd or when someone removes a PROD can be problematic especially for people with minor notability. We can end up with merged identities in an article. And the most quickly available content, that is added merely to keep the article, often will not give us a well balanced article. Getting it fixed soon after creation is key to improving the quality of content. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I see this proposal not as a way to delete unsourced BLPs (it does that, but for me that's secondary) but rather as a means to challenge the attitude that it is acceptable or appropriate for articles to be written that do not cite their sources. Doing so is poor practice from an encyclopedic perspective (see Wikipedia:Verifiability), a legal perspective (see Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Non-free content, both of which apply to use of copyrighted text), and from a professional perspective (the sources of information and ideas should be attributed). Experience has shown that adding {{unreferenced}} is simply not enough in too many cases. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support, Wikipedia should not have any unsourced BLPs, whether the person is notable or not, and whether the article is potentially harmful to the subject or not. This proposal will not solve the problem, but it will go a long way towards making it more manageable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC).
• Neutral (leaning Weak Oppose) as written - per DGG and Colonel Warden and WP:BITE. PROD appears to be working, so I see no gain and plenty to lose by the proposal. I'd tend to go with consensus but I am not seeing it here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • How it is biting to ask people who wish to contribute an article to add one source - and to do so within 5 days? We are an encyclopedia - surely it properly conveys to a newcomer that we take our content, and its reliability, seriously --Scott Mac (Doc) 22:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    • It is. If you can't see that for new users then I am not sure how I can explain it to you. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Then your powers of reasoning and expression are a deal lower than I assumed. "It is." it really quite a pitiful response, when we are dealing with such an important issue.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Let's not descend into personal attacks, please. I'll take a stab at explaining why it's bitey. User:NewEditor gets excited about being able to contribute something to an encyclopedia, and writes something about John Doe, a famous person in his town. He's always heard that John Doe did X, Y, and Z, so he adds it to the 'pedia. Like 99% of everyone out there, NewEditor has no clue that reliable, independent sources are needed for stuff "everyone knows". The next time he signs on, there's a new message, saying in effect "your stuff isn't good enough, you didn't do it right, and if you don't hop to it, we'll delete it, assuming we haven't deleted it already." NewEditor slinks away with his tail between his legs, having been slapped down by the Cabal.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Yeah, Fabrictramp sums it up pretty well. Telling it "how it is" can be deemed incivil in the wrong place at the wrong time. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • We have over 30,000 BLPs tagged as being completely unsourced, many for more than 2 years - about 1 in 11 BLPs is entirely without sources (almost twice as bad as the rate for all articles) - if this is what "working" looks like... Mr.Z-man 23:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    • "Working" is what I meant since Scott has been tagging articles in the past week or so. Not before. i.e. iusing exisitng options ina new way. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is another example of trying to substitute editorial judgement with blind rule following. This is easily gamed. A book can be listed as a source. How many admins are going to go to the library and read the book to verify the claims? Source references can be deleted and then the article tagged. There is no substitute for editorial judgement. A key point of our BLP policy is the deletion of unsourced problematic/controversial claims, not all unsourced claims. If you read a completely unsourced BLP and it has no claims that seem problematic, it should not be deleted. The biggest problem with admins editing articles is admins blindly applying rules to articles that they know nothing about. If you are ignorant of the subject of the article,you should not edit it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • An unsourced or poorly sourced article adds no value to the encyclopedia and potentially causes problems. People have the right to a well-written, well-balanced article based on verifiable reliable sources. Experience has taught us that if we accept less then the articles will remain. Taking another approach is needed to raise our standards to where they need to be in order to have a high quality reference work. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
    • The "adds no value" argument is misleading. Many articles with no sources can be sourced but merely haven't been yet. The value they add is that it's easier to add sources to an article than to rewrite a new one from scratch. This is the wiki process, sharing work. Dcoetzee 20:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • re "If you are ignorant of the subject of the article,you should not edit it." Most editors follow this advice. If an article is outside their area of expertise, they will simply leave it alone. So, unsourced articles on marginally (but sufficiently) notable people are left alone by Wikipedians who never heard of the bio subject. Unfortunately, we can't rely on experts for most articles, as there just aren't enough. Often, the only Wikipedian familiar with the bio subject, is the one person who wrote the article. We need independent reviewers of articles, who aren't necessarily familiar with the subject, to carefully review all BLPs, not just for obvious libel, but more subtle problems. Such reviewers need to know the sources used in writing the article, otherwise it's impractical to spend hours search blindly for sources, never being able to prove they don't exist. --Rob (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as drafted (1) CSD is no place to make policy or define terms so talk of "credible sources" is inappropriate. Either refer to "reliable sources" or "sources". Given how WP:BLP is worded I suggest it should be "reliable sources" (2) This seems to me to be more about amending WP:PROD than amending WP:CSD; it doesn't really fit here; if it were listed there I might support it. (3) I've created a summary of existing deletion policy for BLPs at WP:DP-BLP so that I could find my way around the myriad policies. Hope that's useful. As others have pointed out, BLP articles that fail to assert notability qualify for CSD under A7 and negative unsourced BLPs under G10. Neutral BLPs which assert but do not prove notability only qualify under PROD. The issue about prods being removable by any editor seems to be a problem with prod rather than a problem with BLPs or CSD. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support, except for the part about "credible" sources. That will just make it difficult for admins to enforce. A binary analysis of whether there are any sources provided or not is simple to understand and easy to implement. Regular processes can handle the corner cases. Undeletion is a straightforward solution for when sources are later found, or for when an author forgets or does not know to provide sources. --bainer (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Any WikiProject for an article should be notified - they are the people most likely to have the resources and interest to provide reliable and relevant sources. Royalbroil 23:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The criteria itself is controversial (in other words, there isn't widespread agreement that articles meeting the proposed criteria be deleted). The vast majority of pages which could be deleted by this would be harmless. And who are we kidding, really? Where are the leagues of editors and admins combing cat:BLP looking for credible sources who would be well served by this new deletion criteria? Are we just adding another backlog? This time with a reasonable downside risk to it? Protonk (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Why delete good articles at speedy that may not be content violations simply because they lack citations? If the person is notable, then the article should stay. If there are content issues, tag it. If you really think there is a major concern, PROD it or take it to AfD. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I fail to see, as DGG has said, why G10, PROD, and AFD do not cover all of this. More minor points: As AndrewRT has mentioned, the issue of PRODs can be fixed by forcing rejected prods to automatically be sent to AfD. Or maybe even by creating WP:AfD/Uncontroversial, where seeing what is tagged with prod and with what rationale can be more easily identified. Also, as Casilber has mentioned, I fear that this will lead to even more newbie-scaring off, and right now, we need to court newcomers more than we need to delete every single unsourced BLP. 01:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Can you explain how tagging per this proposal would scare off a newbie *more* than PROD and/or AFD? --Rob (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Sure thing. PROD rationales and AFD by their very nature are usually only used on non-notable or unverifiable articles. This "A10" rationale would be a bit more indiscriminate, and would end up hitting verifiable and notable people. For someone to create a article on a perfectly fine subject without an explicit source and have it be deleted a week later...well that would be more disheartening to me that if it had happened to me for writing about a non-notable subject. 05:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.228.22 (talk)
• Oppose. This is unneeded as we have systems in place that seem to work very well at deleting material. This looks to be a solution in search of a problem. We're here to create articles. Let's find ways to encourage sourcing and better writing instead. -- Banjeboi 02:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support We can have articles on the subject when they are sourced. This is about academic responsibility. Considering it can be undeleted on request then if anyone really cares enough about the article then this won't effect them. It will just get rid of hundreds of abandoned unsourced articles about living people. Chillum 02:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

the proposal was not for dealing with the abandoned ones,but for new articles coming in. DGG (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps when we no longer have to deal with 80 or more new unsourced BLPs a week, we can actually make some progress on the 30,000 abandoned ones. Mr.Z-man 04:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support. It's not perfect, but on the whole this will do more good than bad. Yilloslime ^T_C 03:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment This proposal reminds me of when "Free Use Content" got turned into "Non-free content" and then the deletions became rampant. Obviously, two different cases with different circumstances... but I think this shouldn't turn into a "Tag 30k articles in a week via bot" type of thing (which I'm not saying this will). No other comment except to say I think this is a step in the right direction. --Izno (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Any speedy criterion which opens up for the speedy deletion of articles like Lars Peder Brekk (the Norwegian minister for agriculture) is simply not acceptable. Sourced or not sourced, that BLP should never be deleted, let alone speedy deleted, no matter how many days or how long a grace period is given. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Neither is it acceptable to have BLPs without a single source. Kevin (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • In theory, that same article could already have been deleted with WP:PROD. In reality such deletion wouldn't occur with PROD or with this proposal, because somebody could easily prevent it, by adding one source (like the one there now). --Rob (talk) 07:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    • No administrator worthy of the position should delete an article on the Norwegian minister of agriculture. If it is PROD-ed, and for some reason remains PROD-ed at the end of five days, the correct procedure for the admin is to remove the PROD tag. I strongly believe that if an article like Lars Peder Brekk were deleted from Wikipedia, it would bring Wikipedia into serious disrepute in the Norwegian press. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Regarding the reasons behind the proposal, I don't think it would achieve its aim if it were implemented, because the root cause of BLP violations is not that biographies are unsourced, but that our RC/Newpages patrol is not able to catch each and every edit made, and that bad edits sometimes slip through. There are without question too many cases of serious libel being added to BLPs which were caught up by the press before it was caught by our anti-vandalism mechanisms. For example, the bios of prime ministers Jens Stoltenberg and Torbjørn Jagland were both hit. I have at times (thankfully, very rarely) encountered vicious and obvious attack pages which remained online for over two weeks when I pulled the trigger on them. However, while an event like that is very serious (and I strongly favor stiff sanctions levied against people who do that kind of mischief), neither was fundamentally a result of people accepting unsourced articles or edits. It was a result of people not noticing the vandalism. Unsourced BLPs which are negative and disparaging are already being speedy deleted by criterion G10, and unsourced edits which are negative to a BLP subject are speedily reverted when they are noticed, as they should be. A speedy criterion which expands our mechanisms to correctly condemn bad-faith stuff to something which targets good-faith stuff as well is not going to improve the encyclopedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Random break 2

(note: this is so it is easier to edit)

• Oppose There is no deadline. Articles should be flagged to encourage edits (with the unref tag, for example) instead of deletion (unless, of course, they simply aren't notable). Deleting these articles will just unfill many hole that have been plugged with their initial creation. Editors who start unref'd articles (BLP or not), should be pointed to ways of adding refs and improving their creations. Lugnuts (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There are currently about 14000 articles tagged as unsourced BLPs. Waiting for improvement has not worked up to now, so how do suggest we proceed? Kevin (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In the time you would take to delete them with that new A10, you could easily apply WP:EP to them or WP:PROD them. The dilemma you create is a false one: As those deletions have to be made manually by admins, multiple admins would have to review each of those 14000 articles to avoid deleting articles where the sources exist but which are still tagged or where the sources were removed in acts of vandalism. Now if those admins instead of hitting "delete", just hit "prod" or, much better, just remove the unsourced content and leave a valid stub, would it take them more time? Not really I'd say. It's actually more time consuming because all users can PRESERVE/REMOVE those articles or PROD them but only admins could delete them. Regards SoWhy 09:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If we remove all the unsourced content there is nothing left. We're not talking about poorly sourced articles, they are completely unsourced. Why are people so resistant to adding sources? Kevin (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not about whether people are resistant to adding sources. It's about why you think admins have the time to delete those articles but they don't have the time to fix them which does not take more time. I pointed out an example above: It took me the same time to just cut it down to a stub as reviewing all revisions whether the sources were in the article before (and that's what admins would have to do!) would have taken me. And don't you think the result I achieved is preferable to deletion? Regards SoWhy 09:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I do. I also believe that an atmosphere where the creator of an article does the sourcing rather than having someone come behind them and fix things up is better. Look at it from my point of view: I strongly believe that every BLP should be sourced, and that there is no reason why any BLP should no be sourced. I do not have the time or resources myself to fix every unsourced BLP, so I must turn to another method. Tagging them has not worked, the growing backlog proves that. My objection to PROD is that it can be removed without addressing the problem. What is next? Kevin (talk) 09:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of the wiki system is that the creator does not have to do everything but that every article is a collaboration of many editors. I understand your point of view, I share it in fact. But if you say that you don't have the time to fix them yourself, you won't have the time to delete them with this new A10. And my point is that if fixing and deleting take the same time, there is no reason I can see to prefer the latter. The main problem with those BLPs is not that we cannot delete them, most prods go uncontested after all. It's that noone is willing to go through that backlog to handle them. But a new criterion will not fix that, will it? Regards SoWhy 09:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I can make an informed decision and delete a whole lot faster than adding a decent source. Kevin (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I challenge you to prove it. Let's take the random example I picked yesterday (and to which I alluded before): Richard Doherty (military historian). To make your informed decision, you will have to review all 40 revisions of this article to see whether there were sources in it at some point (because they can easily be removed by a vandal). Set a stopwatch and see how long it takes. Then, navigate to Google News and search for "Richard Doherty" "historian". Find a source and write a simple <ref>-tag citing that source. Set a stopwatch and time your progress. Then tell me which of those tasks took longer. Regards SoWhy 10:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a completely bogus example. The warning tag would be placed shortly after a *new* article is made. All but the first edits to the article would be done with the warning about sources plainly visible. The admin would review the article around 5 days after. The example you gave was made in 2006. Using your own example, an admin would only have to review four versions by two editors. Most importantly, the creatore would have been given a warning, and been able to provide the source the used, preventing any admin from having to do anything, and this problem could have been fix in 2006, if we had this proposal earlier. Obviously, you manufactured the best example you could, and it actually disproves your point. --Rob (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Added: I should have also noted, the example article you gave actually was sourced from the very first version, and would *never* be deleted under this proposal, as it doesn't require complete and proper sources. --Rob (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure every admin would be as thourough as me by searching the history before deleting a page, but I'd like to point out that there is a tool that makes it a lot easier to search an article history than the manual labor methord. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• If they are not, they are not following policy. Speedy deletion policy is that nothing should be deleted where there is a previous version to revert to that would not be speedy-deletable. But which tool is there to automatize that task? Searching for <ref>-tags? Well, most newbies don't know them and thus would not use them. I cannot think of a way to search for all ways someone might have referenced an article. But to speedy-delete a page, that is what admins would have to do. Regards SoWhy 10:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It took me about 20 seconds to check the first edit, and the one before yours, both of which had a source, therefore the appropriate action is not deletion. I'm well aware of how long deletion takes from going through candidates for speedy deletion. It wasn't the best example perhaps, but my opinion stands. Kevin (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Black Falcon (talk · contribs) and Thivierr (talk · contribs) (Rob) summed up my view best. The proposal needs some fine-tuning but the basics are there. If we protect the existing pages by grandfathering, we can improve Wikipedia by sourcing them, rather than wasting our time tagging incoming articles. Wikipedia is now of the size that we should encourage good editorial judgement over growing at all costs. Deleting articles that don't meet requirements immediately enforces the rules listed at the bottom of the edit window (verifiability is the only one of the rules listed there that is not being effectively enforced). As long as existing articles are left out of the proposal, I fully support it. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I'd be screaming blue murder if this was retrospective, but for new articles? We need a cultural change in this respect, and there's zero harm done by implementing this as a start. Rebecca (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. This proposal creates a new deletion mechanism that works parallel to WP:PROD and has no advantages over it. It would create additional administrative workload, and would require those of use who regularly check proposed deletions to attempt to rescue article that should not be deleted to check in two places rather than just one. There is no reason that instead of changing CSD these articles cannot simply be dealt with by placing a {{prod}} tag on them instead of the currently-proposed new tag. I would suggest those who consider deleting these articles necessary should turn their attention to the existing mechanisms for dealing with these issues, rather than trying to create new ones. JulesH (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per DGG. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 12:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support - equivalent of preventing users from removing prods without fixing the problem, which should be policy anyway. PhilKnight (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't that be a suggestion for Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion instead then? If you are saying, it's the same as PROD with a single change, then it shouldn't be a speedy criterion. SoWhy 15:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Moving the discussion at this point isn't going to help, and I for one still think that this criterion would fit in here. I'll place pointers at WT:PROD and WT:DEL in any case. --Amalthea 16:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support—while I balk somewhat at the idea of deleting articles using such a crude method, given the seriousness of potential damage through biographies of living persons it is a reasonable measure. That being said, I agree with Protonk that this proposal is greatly weakened by its own controversy; most criteria for speedy deletion are those which the community as a group endorses as good reasons to delete a page without further discussion. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 16:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support I already delete unsourced BLPs if any negative thing is said, per G10, and those without claims of notability per A7. Still, I think the trend is to raise the bar for BLPs, and rightly so. Jclemens (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. We shouldn't be creating unsourced articles about any topic.   Will Beback  talk  17:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support - Anything to strengthen protection of BLPs is a step in the right direction. Policy dictates that sourcing is the burden of the author. It is not an administrative responsibility to source BLPs. It is our responsibility to protect the subjects and victims of BLPs. In cases where there are no sources, the article should not exist. Those wanting to save such articles will have five days to dig up sources. لennavecia 17:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Verifiability has always been the cornerstone of our articles. This is an enhancement and another step forward to our BLP problem. - Mailer Diablo 17:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support the principle, with a hope that that deadline will steadily move backwards in time as the backlog moves forward in time, until the problem is dealt with. Disagree, however, with the timeframe. We really should have a "Criteria for Quasi-speedy Deletion" between PROD and SPEEDY for images and A10. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support: I went on a BLP-correction spree, removing unreferenced statements and tagging numerous articles for potential deletion or deletion. While doing so, approximately 10% of the BLP entries that I ran across contained unsourced, libelous information that if it were to be noted in the popular press, would cause scandals that could further damage what little reputation Wikipedia has as a reliable and verifiable source. We cannot take any chances with this, and 10% of the 300 that I checked is far too many. To note that this is a "nonexistant problem" is laughable. seicer | talk | contribs 20:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

But we can already fix articles with libellous information by speedily deleting them under WP:CSD#G10 or, if there is salvageable content, editing and oversighting the libellous edits. No new speedy deletion criterion is needed. This proposal would treat distract attention from the potentially harmful cases by making admins spend their time deleting articles that don't have any potential for harm. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless the material is sourced or is unequivocally positive, we cannot assume that just because it looks harmless that it is. Its possible for untruths other than blatant libel to cause harm to a subject. Mr.Z-man 22:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per Sjakkalle and DGG. I like the idea of having everything sourced (BLP and otherwise) but I think that's going to keep a lot of editors away. We aren't (yet? ever?) at the point we want to decrease the number of editors joining us, and this kind of thing will drive people away. 141.212.111.116 (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support This is different than G10. G10 has a very narrow application. There needs to be an easier way to delete problematic BLPs than taking them to AfD each time. It's tiresome and I simply don't want to do it anymore. There are many thousands of unsourced that should be deleted and they would be covered by this. Enigma^msg 22:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support As said, this will help stem the tide. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support Protecting BLPs is more important than editing anonymously AND it's more important than allowing unsourced content about BLPs. Failing this, any BLP article lacking even a single source needs to be brought to AFD immediately. rootology (C)(T) 02:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support mostly per PhilKnight's sentiments, even though I'm not particularly convinced PROD and AfD can't handle these articles anyway. Nonetheless, it theoretically freezes the unsourced-BLP backlog to whatever existed before this month (since anything new will be either sourced or deleted), and I can't see how that's a bad thing. BryanG (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support, but oppose as a CSD. This seems much more PROD-like to me. I think this should be an extension of that, or something different altogether. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What difference do you see between this and the timed image deletion criteria? Kevin (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

... e.g. {{Di-no license}}: delete, unless a specific problem is fixed within a given timeframe? --Amalthea 07:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that mostly concerns the uploader while BLPs are rather a problem for the community at large. I'll try to offer a more complete opinion in a separate post.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. I recognize that the seriousness and severity of BLP issues makes people think we need to put them in a special category; I agree. But that does not mean we need a separate deletion process for them. WP:PROD already serves this purpose. There is no need to complicate things by making yet another, totally separate, deletion process that people have to familiarize themselves with. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 13:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• That argument doesn't even get started. PRODs get removed by vandals/the creators of the defamatory content in the first place. I sometimes PROD BLPs, but what's the use? They get removed, and many times it's by the author of the BLP disaster. Enigma^msg 16:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Do you have any evidence that that happens so frequently that AfD would be overloaded by taking the contested prods there? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• From my experience, many people at AFD don't care much at all about things like WP:V and WP:RS unless its a blatant hoax. If its marginally notable, it will likely be kept at AFD, regardless of how terrible the sourcing is. Mr.Z-man 16:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Mr. Z-man is correct. As for evidence, I think I have 25 of my own BLP PRODs that were declined but are still unsourced, unwatched, and generally terrible. Should I bring them all to AfD at once? I will add that I don't really want to, because it's very difficult to get borderline BLPs deleted at AfD or anywhere else. It's difficult to prove a negative. Enigma^msg 17:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Could you both (Mr.Z-man and Enigmaman) please give examples of what you mean? I did ask for evidence, not assumptions. And, Mr.Z-man, are you seriously saying that we should be speedily deleting articles because they might be kept at AfD? The whole point of speedy deletion is that it is for articles that wouldn't have a chance of being kept at AfD. If AfDs are getting the "wrong" result then the answer is to fix AfD, which is not a discussion for this talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think the content of the article is actually defamatory, then you should speedy delete it immediately, and not wait for a policy proposal to authorize you to do so. There is nothing stoping you from solving this problem right now. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 16:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support Skinny87 (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia:Articles for creation has for years now required that articles be sourced, with, as far as I can see, little objection on the grounds of WP:BITE or anything else. 86.44.20.2 (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, as it would likely be counter-productive in the long term. Articles with minimal notability would likely be recreated after deletion under those terms, and there's no guarantee they'll be sourced or in better shape than before (and the non-notable ones are deletable through other means). The problem should be fixed at the root, by improving sourcing and the detection and removal of blp violations. I know it takes time and backlogs are huge, but many possibilities are unfolding to improve this. Cenarium (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose the issue of sourcing is independent (perhaps even in the mathematical sense) from the BLP issues we are trying to fix. Hobit (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• support fixing mistakes will be ridiculously easy and its the start of fixing our blp problems. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support This is a great way to prevent long-term BLP violations. Reywas92^Talk 15:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Administrators should check that the creator has been given adequate notice."? AND you're going to say that if an editor is willing to source it after it's been deleted, the admin should undelete? And what happened to the three months? This tag, even if you say it's only for articles that have been tagged as unsourced for more than 3 months, WILL be abused and tagged immediately after some articles are created. Worse yet, this makes it way too easy for editors be gone with unsourced articles and not make an attempt to include BLPs of people who actually are notable enough for inclusion. This is a disaster waiting to happen. --fuzzy510 (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose -- We are able to save them with care, so do it. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose this pernicious rule-creep.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support We've got a lot of crappy BLP articles here at Wikipedia and this would help winnow the weakest ones out. Not to mention it would be in line with BLP policy - if you can't source it, it shouldn't be here. --JaGa^talk 06:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support (worth coming back out of hiding for this) - The measures proposed here could even be stronger, but given the near-glacial speed at which Wikipedia's true problems are addressed, a necessary step. - 52 Pickup (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Process similar to the Copyvio log?

• Support with caveats and suggestions - It makes sense to trigger a reversion of unsourced additions of content after some time, but it should be part of a process that aims at the systematic improvement with deletion as the last resort and that scales up smoothly with respect to older BLPs. While the underlying problem is different, one process I see parallels with is that for suspected copyvios. Moreover, the removal of BLPs that have the specific problem of being not yet sourced at all, makes more sense if its part of a larger policy regarding BLP quality and protection. In particular:

1. It is not really like a CSD which addresses things where we all agree that they have to go, but amounts to a community backed editorial choice including the the agreement that we only apply it to new ones for the moment which is not the case for other CSDs.
2. It is not really like Prod, because Prod is about ushering out unwanted stuff with prod patrol trying to catch the errors. Here the take is the opposite. Ideally we want to keep and source articles or at least allow for doing so, but we are willing to let them fall out, if nobody does it.
3. Automatically sending to AfD is no help either since it isn't primarily for adding sources and noms are indeed advised to search for some first.
4. It should be designed to rather involve BLP aware editors. A cat is not enough. It needs a very friendly tag that explains what to do to fix the problem. Moreover, as per above example of the copyvio log, the articles should be be listed in a log page. It may seem overly bureaucratic, but allows for keeping track of what has been tagged, what is done about it, what has been deleted and might be restored if sources can be added. Additionally, it would allow for later later expansion with respect to the backlog. In that sense the deletion reason would read Listed at the Unsourced BLP notice board for 5 / 7 days without improvement. What is eligible for listing can then slowly be opened up beyond new articles. If the community wants to implement it as speedy criterion now, it should later be merged into such a full scale process. While the underlying problem is different than a copyvio, the analogy also brings to mind a possible alternative for older articles on notable subjects, namely replacing the content with a template but leave it in article space, the latter just being an idea.

Sorry for the length and possible incoherence but I am effectively sitting on packed bags and wanted to take the opportunity to offer a more general take.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:PROD in action

I have provided sources today for six articles that had been prodded for being unsourced BLPs: Elzbieta Sikora, Renuka Menon, Hajji Alejandro, Ernani Aguiar, Atul Agnihotri, and Ada Marshania. We now have six sourced articles on clearly notable people that we wouldn't have if these articles had been speedily deleted under this proposal. Is Wikipedia a better encyclopedia with these articles or without them? Unless AfD gets overloaded with contested BLP prods that haven't had sources added then using prod rather than speedy deletion gets rid of the bad articles just as easily, but produces a better encyclopedia (which is what we are supposed to be here for) by giving editors the chance to rescue the sourceable articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The proposal concerns new articles. 86.44.20.2 (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

And exactly the same could be said for new articles - if prod is used instead of speedy deletion it gives people a chance to actually build the encyclopedia rather than prevent it from being built. Yet again, let's have some evidence first that WP:PROD and WP:AFD can't handle the workload before making this a speedy deletion criterion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A figure of 30,000 in need of rescue has been mentioned. You have dealt with six, and doubtless it was no small work. How many shall you do tomorrow? The figure is currently growing all the time. The idea is to require ppl to source BLP articles at creation if they wish them to remain. This is not unreasonable. 86.44.20.2 (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, feel free to improve articles. The point is that no one has been doing it at a pace that is allowing us to keep up. If you can get some of them source that is great. But if no one is working on them we need to remove them at some point. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood the proposal. It's not delete-on-site. Like with PROD, the article is tagged, and time is given to solve the problem, and remove the tag. The difference is: with PROD no fix is required, and with A10 a super simple fix is required. So, the A10 proposal wouldn't delete any of those articles, since sources were added in the alloted time of the tag. To be redundant: absolutely no verifiable article would ever have to be deleted under the A10 proposal. None. Zeroe. The creator, or you, or anybody, can simply add some sourcing in a reasonable amount of time, and the article is kept; and like PROD, if deleted, it can be restored any time in the future. --Rob (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed proposal modification

Noting bite objections, hesitancy over the harshness of the concrete proposal’s solution, and the seriousness of the issue (unsourced articles detracting from Wikipedia’s reliablilty).

Instead of deleting after 5 days, move the article to some project space location (but never automatically to userspace), where if it remains without credible sources, after 90 days it may be deleted.

By moving the article out of mainspace, and breaking any incoming links, this somewhat mitigates the potential damage to a LP, considerably reduces the risk of the casual reader unwittingly reading misinformation, and gives the newcomer-author ample time to consider our sourcing requirements. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That proposal does not address most of the opposing reasons, especially not why deletion is to be preferable to cutting articles down to stub size by removing the unsourced content as per editing policy. The main problem is not that those articles exist but that noone feels obligated to do the simple work needed to preserve the information. And it does not explain why admins would be willing to go through thousands of articles to move them but not to prod them or remove the unsourced information - after all, there is no difference in the time it takes to do it. Regards SoWhy 09:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don’t think that wikipedia should host unsourced BLP stubs.

I don’t think I support WP:PRESERVE when it comes to unsourced information on living people.

I expect that, in practice, the admin will move, leaving no redirect and tag the unsourced BLP. If no one removes the tag, or moves the article to main space or userspace, then after 90 days it will be deleted by an automated process. I think the difference with PROD is that articles are prodded if it is believed that the article should be deleted. BLPs would be moved to the 90 day limbo zone out of a hope that the authors will provide sources. Yes, it sounds a lot like PROD, but much gentler for the newocomer author in that it has a long limbo time, and different in that the article is immediately moved out of mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that WP:PRESERVE is policy that cannot be overruled by creating a new criterion here, you fail to explain why admins would have the time to move those article and tag them and leave the author a note and delete the article after 90 days but won't have the time to WP:REMOVE the unsourced information or spend 2 minutes on a simple Google News search instead. If they have enough time to do the former, the surely have enough time to do the latter. If they don't have the time to do the former, then the problem is the unwillingness to do any work on those articles, not their existence and then it won't be solved with such a criterion. Regards SoWhy 09:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I understood this was about BLPs completely lacking in credible sources. Removing the unsourced information means removing everything. Arguably, such articles are deletable due to WP:BLP, notwithstanding WP:EP. The admin actions are straightforward, even automatable. Improving articles is not straightforward. Google news reports are not a good basis for wikipedia articles. It is definitely not the role of admins to go around sourcing newcomers substandard BLPs. The question that seems to be dividing us is: “Should unsourced BLPs be allowed to stay?” --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not automatable. As sources can be removed by vandals, each article has to be checked for this before deletion. It's a time-consuming procedure anyway. Google News can be basis for WP articles because it allow finding reliable sources, which is what matter here. The question is not, whether unsourced BLPs should be allowed but whether deleting them is really the best way to deal with them given the alternatives (which already exist). Regards SoWhy 11:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:CSD, WP:PROD, and WP:BLP are policy also. If there is a consensus to change the editing policy, it can be changed. With the exception of law-based policies like WP:COPYRIGHT, no policy is immutable. The "alternatives" consist of the few people who actually care about bringing BLPs up to standards within a decade sourcing every single BLP of every marginally notable person that gets created by themself. That's what we've been doing, that's what's led to the 30,000 page backlog we have now. If you have other alternatives that don't involve deletion of a large amount, or a few people doing massive amounts of work, please propose them. Mr.Z-man 17:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Alternative solution

If there are 14,000 unsourced BLP articles out there, why doesn't some just go through and tag them all with PROD? Or more realistically, tag the first 500 for now so that the PROD backlog doesn't get too much and you give content adders the opportunity to save as many as they can within a reasonable length of time. Set up a Wikipedia:Wikiproject Unsourced BLPs to manage teh workflow. In six months the problem will be over. This can already be done within existing policy and achieves the same - this debate becomes redundent. AndrewRT(Talk) 16:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

PROD is for uncontroversial deletions only, and anyone can contest a proposed deletion at any time for any reason (the only exceptions being bad-faith requests and vandalism) even without immediately addressing the original reason for the proposed deletion. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This first bit isn't true. PROD only makes uncontraversial deletions, but you're free to prod whatever you like. A "run it up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes" mentality. WilyD 20:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've PRODded all 20 articles in Category:Unreferenced BLPs from August 2006 - let's see how the experiment works. I would argue all of these are uncontroversial - in that WP:DP unambigously states the reasons for deletion include "Articles which breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons", which in turn requires that "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully". I understand the tags can be removed - those that are I'll just list at AFD instead. See you in five days ;) AndrewRT(Talk) 21:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Put your flameproof suit on Andrew, many were had already prodded or had survived AfD. Kevin (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging up and apologies for my mistake - there were indeed a few that had already been prodded or AFD'd which I foolishly thought Twinkle would pick up automatically! Anyway, I've been through and either improved, redirected or AfD'd those that couldn't stay as prodded. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Your experiment is somewhat flawed, because I went through and sourced and removed all the articles I could from that particular category ten hours previous to your actions. I just mention this to prevent you from drawing the wrong conclusions. Hiding T 09:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out- I'll bear that in mind when drawing conclusions! Thanks also for your efforts in finding solutions to these unsourced articles. AndrewRT(Talk) 12:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Scott MacDonald needs to provide feedback on the PRODding effort, as he went on a spree of PRODding BLP articles recently. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Prodding is not satisfactory if the problem is poorly sourced content. User do an online search, find a person with the same or similar name, and then remove the PROD tag with the claim that the person is notable. No meaningful work is done to improve the article beyond changes to it so it meets the notability criteria for inclusion. This approach is not moving us toward articles with high quality content. Our current approaches are not working. That is the reason that we have a vast number of lousy articles about living people. :-( FloNight♥♥♥ 14:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly: the status quo isn't working. We can either try and find ways to raise our standards, or lower our expectations. If we go the latter way, perhaps we could put a big BETA tag on Wikipedia for the next decade or so. Maybe by then we'll have sorted out the backlog. Rd232 ^talk 14:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Jennavecia said it very well above: "Policy dictates that sourcing is the burden of the author. It is not an administrative responsibility to source BLPs." Requiring the people who want to enforce policy to do all of the work themselves is not a viable option. Mr.Z-man 17:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be a short-term vision to believe that deletion can be a solution to unsourced blps. The non-notable ones can be deleted through other means and the notable ones would likely be recreated. We could study recreated blps, but I'm pretty sure the quality would in general be inferior, especially when it had existed for a while (and edited by several users). Our efforts in improving the sourcing of BLPs are still recent, we should continue that way, as improvement possibilities are unfolding. There are still many blps to delete among non-notable ones. Cenarium (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If the problem is unsourced BLPs then anything that turns them into referenced BLPs is a good thing surely? If they remain small stubs, that's a different issue. I create plenty of in-depth articles myself on areas I have expertese in, but this is about addressing flawed articles on subject areas that are often totally new to me.

Mr. Z-Man and Jennavecia, I agree that policy requires editors adding content to source it. However, at the moment, it also required editors who nominate articles for deletion to have investigated potential sourced. One way forward - which could give us a way to clear the backlog - is to remove that requirement where unsourced BLPs are nominated for deletion. I've proposed that at here - hope you can add your comments there. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Alternative solution: tighten WP:PROD

One of the issues raised in this discussion is that PROD doesn't fulfil some of the purpose expected of it - and which prompts this CSD proposal - because it's too easy to remove PROD tags without anything constructive happening. So at WP:PROD#Tighten guidelines I've suggested marginally tightening the PROD tag removal guidelines. Namely (a) a PROD may be removed, but it is strongly recommended that you either fix the problem mentioned or if you don't, that you justify removal on the talk page; (b) if only one person has added substantial content to the article, that person may not remove the PROD tag unless they either fix the problem mentioned or justify removal on the talk page. For removals in contravention of (b), the PROD tag may be re-added, if the re-addition is explained on the Talk page. Basically, try and make PROD involve a bit more of the discussion process that AFD does, by not making removal of the tag quite so trivial. If PROD worked like that, it would be a better alternative to the proposed CD criterion. It could also be applied to the backlog fairly widely - but not all in one go, to enable some collaboration on fixing the PRODded articles. Rd232 ^talk 23:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What qualifies as a BLP?

Obviously if the article's main subject is a living person, it counts. If R.J. Corman Railroad Group didn't have the reference, would it qualify? --NE2 00:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Alternative solution: Sourcing

Here's an alternative. All the editors actively prodding articles actually look for sources first. That would go a long way to helping. Unless the problem being addressed here is not unsourced bios, but that we have too many bios to keep an eye on. That's a radically different issue that would lead to a radically different solution. But I'd rather work that out now than waste time sourcing articles people will eventually delete anyway. Hiding T 10:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what the problem is. There are too many of them and too many of them are added to make sourcing effective in cleaning the backlog. I'd be happy to make an effort to source existing material if we can close the tap so nothing more floods in. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I just suggested on Doc's talk page that we protect all blp's, turn off article creation and just get it done. I can do ten a day comfortably. Should take us all a day, two at most. Hiding T 12:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Protecting them doesn't really help anything, as that just locks in any problematic content. If you want to actually fix them, if you disable article creation first, 100 people doing 10 articles a day would be able to work through the current backlog in about a month. If we don't disable article creation, you'd need 1 or 2 more people to compensate for the 11 to 12 new unsourced BLPs we get on an average day. You would need 3,000 people to be able to do it all in a day. Mr.Z-man 18:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, you'd need between 100 and 1000. Ten is comfortable in one day for me. That's three hours. I could easily do thirty in three hours, so I could do maybe 100 in one slog of a day. I stand by my estimation of a day or two, if everyone put their back to it, if all the articles were semi-protected and article creation was turned off. Yes, it is a lot of ifs and buts, but failure to dare is the easiest fence to fall at. Imagine if we only got half done. Wouldn't that be a thing? Hiding T 12:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a practical suggestion to help this: could someone add a Google search link into the Template:BLP_unsourced? AndrewRT(Talk) 12:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Addressing unsourced articles, not just unsourced BLPs

The problem is not limited to BLP articles. Every day the category of unreferenced articles grows in size and despite my best efforts, it's like carrying water to the sea -- so I gave up. (I manage to reference 5 articles while 50 come in).

Unfortunately, the editing community can't agree. At the one side there are people who say there is no deadline and that existing deletion processes address these issues, on the other hand there are people who want to take immediate action. The ever increasing amount of unreferenced articles clearly mean something should be done, so we need to reach a middle ground that keeps both parties happy and does something about the problem. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Option 1: Speedy deletion

This option might be disagreed on by many, but it addresses something that is already codified as a policy. Articles must be verifiable.

At the bottom of the edit window there is a line that says: "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the GFDL*." Copyrighted material is regularly deleted by the speedy deletion criterion G12 and the rules about GFDL are applied whenever needed. Verifiability has no such efforts to enforce it. To encourage good encyclopedic practices and lift weight of AFD, we should discourage the writing of unreferenced material altogether. It's time to focus on quality rather than quanitity. To avoid serious loss of information this would only apply to newly created entries.

A10 speedy deletion applies to: "Any article that lists no sources or external links whatsoever and has been created after April 30, 2009." -- Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Option 2: Projectification

To make recreation of potentially interesting articles easier for WikiProjects, I also suggest a change to WikiProject pages. Each project would get an additional page called a "draft board" or something similar where they can ask to have have pages "projectified" (project type userfication) for referencing. If this method is used, we can use an alternative prod format which has the criterion: "Any article that lists no sources or external links whatsoever, has been created after April 30, 2009 and has been tagged for at least 5 days." (removing the prod without addressing the issues raised would obviously be forbidden.) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'll buy this. Hiding T 13:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Option 3: Filtering

The new AbuseFilter can be set to disallow any article that lacks references altogether and give the user making the edit a friendly warning without the requirement for a bot.

This will clearly put more strain on AFD and other deletion processes because it will become less clear whether sources are reliable sometimes, but it does address the issue of articles being completely unreferenced by giving editors something to check for accuracy rather than wondering where the information came from. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Can it work if the creator writes "Soorces: Some Book by a Guy" (sic)? I think it important to allow plenty of leeway in what constitutes a source. Kevin (talk) 09:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• No the filter would recognize commonly used tags and formatting used in references. Obviously bad sources would still need human assessment. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think WT:CSD is the right venue for such discussions... SoWhy 11:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I posted it here because it is an expansion on the BLP thread above. I'd be happy to move it if we can agree on a location and leave a link behind. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose any such proposal, as it increases the barrier for new users creating topics. Most of us didn't learn how to format references properly for quite a while after we began editing wikipedia, and the fact that somebody can come here and start a new article with very little commitment (i.e., just by signing up for an account and waiting a couple of days) is one of our strengths. Adding new barriers to this should only be done when absolutely necessary, and I see this proposal as a solution without a problem. JulesH (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm not requiring newbie authors to format the references with complicated formatting. That would pose unneccesary complications. I'm trying to encourage citing any references at all regardless of their formatting. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Preternaturally Strong Oppose. This is, in my considered opinion, a terrible idea. I'm sorry to be so blunt, MacGyverMagic, but I just do not think this should be implemented. Ever. From the proposal's pushing personal preference of one referencing method over another, its disregarding factor many wikiprojects are moribund, plus apparent reluctance of proposer to continue help adding references (fine) and instead wipe swathes of new articles on sight (not fine); the idea a reward for a job well done is three new jobs, is not uncommon; even if one specific rewarded person decides to pull back for a while, that doesn't warrant measures like this. –Whitehorse1 12:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: Machines should not restrict article creation like that on Wikipedia without any human oversight. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a terrible idea and seems counter to the entire concept of Wikipedia. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support adding a filter for articles with a lack of references. Oppose blocking them completely. There should be a message containing some language pointing to resources on citing sources, but it shouldn't be disallowed entirely. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If it could gather more support, we can set such a filter to warn rather than disallow the edit. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I....um....I don't want to offend anyone here. But option three is fucking insane. That's not meant as an attack on the authors or the supporters. the option itself. Is nuts. Just take a tour of some featured or good articles today (even on some major figures like queens, kings, presidents, cities, states, etc.) and click through the history to the first avialable version. If all of them had references and inline citations I'll eat my shoes. Protonk (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Not just for the reasons stated above that this will discourage new articles, but also because it puts more barriers in the way of contributing to the project by new users — they would have to learn how to format filter-recognizable sources, a much bigger step than just learning wikiformatting. The long-term future of the project requires a steady stream of new contributors and this is not a constructive step in that direction. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

Do these options also cover things like the one-sentence stub articles about "this town in a country you've never even heard of" and "that one book that isn't even sold in bookstores"? I think that an important part of Wikipedia's expansion is coming from the people who quickly create large numbers of short articles, encouraging others to expand them... saying that these articles with 1-2 sentences, maybe an infobox, a stub template, and a couple of cats should be deleted or "projectified" just doesn't seem right to me. Certainly all articles should be references—these short articles are tagged with {{Unreferenced}} as is—but when an article is that short not having references is, in my mind, acceptable. Once an article gets longer and isn't stating the obvious (obvious being "[Town name] is a town in [the United States/Argentina/India/whatever], located at [Coordinates]", then it certainly needs to be referenced, but are you proposing articles like that sample be deleted or projectified due to a lack of references? If so and this gets passed, I can see a number of users severely cutting back on their editing time because what they focused on can't really be done anymore. –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no added value to a reader to have stubs or pre-stubs that are unreferenced. The reliability of our content is entirely based on good sourcing since our content is largely created by non-experts. We regularly find hoax or nonsense articles when deep reviews of references are done.

In my opinion, an existing inferior article will stop someone from starting a better article because they will not as urgently see the need to fill the gap if there is not a red link. So, there is a definite downside to a massive number of extremely brief entries. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And hopefully these editors can be directed toward other ways to contribute if they are not using any references. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "they will not as urgently see the need to fill the gap if there is not a red link", because FA and even some GA reviewers object to red links. OTOH someone who enjoys a GA or FA may follow up a blue link, find a stub and perhaps improve it. --Philcha (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This approach has not been success in producing high quality content, unfortunately. We have a massive number of stubs and pre-stubs and that number is not dropping because people are expanding them faster than they are being made. I see no advantage of a redirect over a stub, and there are definite disadvantages since we must have volunteer effort to maintain each entry in an updated manner (such as reverting vandalism, updating categories). FloNight♥♥♥ 00:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because an article is unsourced, does not mean it is unverifiable. While having sources makes it a lot easier to verify, indiscriminate speedy deletion of articles just because they have no specified source is foolish. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 22:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia's content is not written by experts, the content must be based on reliable sources. If the content has no sources then it has no valuable to the reader because there is no evidence that it is factual. Regularly, we find vandalism, hoaxes, nonsensical and malicious content mixed in with our good content. Our reader need to know that all our content is good. That can only happen if the content has reliable sources. Looking for sources for existing content is backwards. The content needs to come from a reliable source that is giving a broad unbiased look at the subject so we know that it is giving us a neutral point of view about the subject. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Option 4

Continue the present policy that unsourced articles are not deleted for that reason alone. The proper course is to try to source them. If they cannot be sourced, they go to AfD or to Prod, depending on whether someone thinks it is going to be controversial. And remember an unsourced article is not actually any better than one that appears with some sort of a source that maybe inapplicable or irrelevant. We can delete for the sources being inadequate, if no better sources can be found. Not because they aren't on the article presently, but because a reasonable search shows there are not any.

If there is to be a change in it, it should be discussed in a more general place in a more general way. This is not a question that is actually relevant to speedy deletion specifically. If people want to delete them by speedy deletion, the first step is getting the agreement of the community that they should be deleted at all. The last time it was proposed, about a year ago, it was decisively defeated. If something like this is going to be proposed again, it needs general attention and a good deal of time to consider it.

Personally, I think it a very poor idea. We should be devoting our efforts to sourcing them in the first place, not to deleting them. It will be a sad day when the community changes its mind. DGG (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a great idea - everyone gets sourcing things and we don't have to delete anything, because everything is now sourced. However, unfortunately, after eight years of trying this we know it does not work. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that there is consensus that our current inclusion criteria is correct. The notability guidelines were not written by the majority of our active contributors and seem to be used mostly by a select group of editors that participate in Afd discussions. I have no idea how we got to this point, but it is not reasonable for us to have a growing number of articles without sources and no sensible plan about how to fix the problem because we are stuck with unworkable guidelines. Insisting that all content be sourced seems very reasonable. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

re: We should be devoting our efforts to sourcing them in the first place, not to deleting them. The A10 proposal does devote efforts on sourcing in the first place. The creator would be required to include sources from the beginning, when it takes very little extra time/effort (assuming the material is verifiable). It takes vast amounts of time to "prove" there are no sources for an article. All you can do is waste lots of time, and give up (How do you prove something doesn't exist). If the article creator provides their sources, then that gives reviewers something to review, instead of going on a blind hunt. --Rob (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Flonight and Rob. Rd232 ^talk 02:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Flonight, Thivierr, and Doc make a compelling case. DGG, I would agree with your proposal on one condition: freeze the creation of new articles so we can work on sourcing the existing ones. In the current state, it gets worse and worse every day. The only workable solution from my point of view is just to delete the unsourced BLPs. Staying with the status quo would simply result in a steady increase of unsourced BLPs because a lot of them are borderline, and good luck to anyone who wants to take them all to AfD and prove that none of them have any potential sources. Enigma^msg 04:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DGG 100%- people wanting to delete something should first just google for WP:RS and add them if they exist- to add one only takes five mins. What happened to us being "the sum of all human knowledge?" Now we're going to delete articles because they're not perfect yet? We could just do a moment's work to improve the article instead. Or do you want to destroy knowledge which people have added? I'm a deletionist, that doesn't mean I (in the words of User:Kmweber) hate wikipedia.:):):):) I only want to get rid of the articles with insufficient notability- those subjects not worth an article; with the exception of those where a borderline-notability BLP subject has actively said they wish their article gone. Sticky Parkin 02:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

An important thing to remember is that the move to inlne referencing is gaining apace everywhere, and thus unreferenced material is alot easier to isolate and improve/delete/whatever than it used to be. Scott posted his figures on the PRODding he was doing and I think the current process is certainly feasible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It takes far more than a moment, if sources aren't easily found. No matter how much time is spent, it's almost impossible to ever say an article is unsourceable. People doing quick sourcing may do more harm than good, because the results are poor. They also tend to find sources to fit the content, instead of basing the content on the sources; which is the proper way to go. The sources we truly need, are the sources used by the person who added the information (e.g. article creator). Sourcing isn't like other "nice" editing, such as formatting, organizing, spell checking, grammar etc...; which can all be done by anybody, and often the combination of effort produces a result better than any one person. But sourcing is almost always best done by the person adding the information in the first place. Say where you got your info. It's simple and easier, if you're the one adding the info. It's hard for others, to guess where you got it. If you can't say where you got your info, you should not add the info to Wikipedia, especially if it's info about a living person. --Rob (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I did a little experiment with today's unpatrolled new pages. I took 20 BLPs that had not yet been examined & were about people doing things I could understand a little. I tried for recent ones, but the real junk was probably deleted right after adding, as usual. Of these, 9 were probably or certainly notable, and had at least minimal referencing. 4 were probably notable, and had no referencing (I tagged, and left customized notices for the authors). 5 were probably non-notable, but did have some referencing. i prodded or tagged, depending on how sure I was. 3 were non notable and had no referencing at all. I found good reason to speedy all of them under existing rules. I do not see we have a problem that this proposal will address. (if anyone is interested, my basic notice for unreferenced but possibly notable is:" ==alert about referencing== Do not create articles without references. If you have the information to write the article, you got it from somewhere. Say where . Articles without references are likely to get deleted. I advise you to do this the moment you create the article, to avoid problems.." In one case, it was a repeat offender, for footballers, & I intend to follow up. ) We have good policy already. We need good patrolling. DGG (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I obviously agree that sources should be provided by the creator. The trouble is that it is so rarely done. Think of the standards we've had at WP:AFC. Why can't those standards apply everywhere? If you can't provide a reliable source, do not create the article. I can list perhaps 50 repeat offenders who have created hundreds of articles apiece without sources. They're also generally terrible articles. Even with warnings about continuing to create the articles, they do not stop, and I have not had luck finding administrators willing to block. I'm sure you can guess at the result. Enigma^msg 04:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, half the dilemma would be solved if we could say "unless you are a total newbie, know that creating unsourced BLPs, or indeed adding unsourced material to a BLP is unacceptable. If you do it, your material will be rejected and you will be warned then blocked."--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's see if we can agree on this--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd 100% get on board with that idea. The problem is finding administrators willing to lay down the law and enforce it consistently. Such a stance would eliminate a large portion of the problem. Editors should not be able to get away with creating hundreds of lousy BLPs. Enigma^msg 16:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I could definitely agree on that. Is there an ongoing discussion about this? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

DGG: any chance you could put your standard message into a uw template (perhaps similar to the uw-aiv template? That way it could eventually be integrated into Twinkle in the way the AFD templates are. Cheers! 155.202.254.82 (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Not if it is going to be used as a reason for deletion/ I carefully worded it "are likely to get deleted" not "will be deleted". A perfectly correct statement of fact, but not masquerading as policy. DGG (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Add a time delay for G8

I propose adding a time delay for G8 - I see it being abused unintentionally in the middle of discussions with slow editors. Article is being edited by 1 or 2 newbie editors; it gets a csd tag slapped on it within hours (often for notability, lack of sources, &c), sometimes it's deleted before the author even understands what has happened. OK, we're not so friendly to newbies, no problem -- at least there's a talk page to have a steady discussion about whether or how to create the article properly, right?

But no, the talk page gets speedied also, almost immediately. This can be very confusing.

Proposed alternative : a talk page for a deleted article can only be deleted after the article has been deleted for [a week]. Admin-aware scripts can still find these pages automatically; and it's friendlier to new editors. If the talk page is spam or vandalism, as people seem to have suggested in past versions of this discussion, it can still be speedied under the appropriate criterion. +sj + 18:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I support this, for talk pages of deleted pages only (things like redirects to deleted pages can be speedied right away). –Drilnoth (T • C) 18:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my rule for orphaned talk pages is orphaned + no talk page activity in the past seven days. (I also generate a report currently set to update twice weekly here: Wikipedia:Database reports/Orphaned talk pages.) The colored rows are the ones I used to bot delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I support retaining Talk pages for a while, but I'd say 4 weeks, to allow for illness, holidays, real life, etc. I also suggest a banner should be placed on a deleted article's Talk page to: link to the deletion discussion or other explanation of the deletion; tell the editors what they can do if they think the deletion was unjustified or they have found sources to show notability, etc. --Philcha (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but if it would help get this through, why not use something like PROD instead of speedy deletion? Gives the editor a chance to get their act together if the material's legit, and still gets it off the project if they can't be bothered getting it referenced, or if the references don't exist. Rebecca (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• I like the idea of all deleted pages (AfD, Speedy, Prod etc.) having 1-4 weeks to live. If admin bots can handle the "delete it later" part it seems like pure win. 141.212.111.116 (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So when I close a TfD as delete, I can delete the template itself under the TfD, and the /doc subpage under G8, but I have to wait a week to delete the talk page under the same criterion? Happy‑melon 17:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

if there is significant content or discussion on a talk pages of an article I speedy, I either don't delete the talk p, or transfer the material to the author's talk p. (It would be nice having a script to do that.) DGG (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, SJ (and great work with both OLPC and WP, btw), I had been wondering how to handle this. I didn't know McBride had something automated ... that's fantastic. I'm not going to make a list to delete something 7 days from now, nor am I at all happy about letting things sit around in the speedy queue, so that every admin has to review the same articles. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

{{duplicate}}

Is [5] an approved change to the wording of {{duplicate}} ? 76.66.193.69 (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Do you disapprove? --Amalthea 09:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The comments below the template state "Only use for images that are exact duplicates!" Hence the wording of the template now better reflects usage so I sould support keeping this change. AndrewRT(Talk) 17:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What is a "sourced article"?

Several articles which are not explicitly sourced, but still contain enough information to make the location of the source obvious. Take as an example:

John Cox is a chess player who has written several chess books including: The Berlin Wall: The Variation That Brought Down Kasparov, Starting Out: 1.d4, Dealing with d4 Deviations and Starting Out: Alekhine Defence. He holds the title of International Master and has a FIDE rating of 2367.

If something like this were submitted, the article is not explicitly sourced, except that if someone took a look at any of the books mentioned in the paragraph, they would see "John Cox" prominently written on the front cover, the back cover , the spine, and the inside of the book. A claim that someone has a FIDE rating is obviously sourcable to the FIDE rating list. Is an article like this "unsourced" for purposes of the speedy criterion people are discussing above?

Obviously, an editor ought to make a reference section, he ought to provide a link to the chess federations website to show that the person really has the rating the article says he has, but not doing so is precisely the kind of mistake novice editors often make. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:DELETE says improvement is always preferable to deletion. However I've seen deletion debates that have ignored such pointers to good sources and where there have been delete votes. I confess I'm in 2 minds about this situation. Such behaviour is a violation of the WP:DELETE policy, and some of the attitudes I've seen behind "delete" votes have not been pleasant. OTOH I have not intention of doing another editor's chores, and I've seen editors who create unsourced stubs by the lorry-load. --Philcha (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the simple answer to your question is yes, that would be unsourced. Sources need to be explicit. AndrewRT(Talk) 17:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a source for Cox's books: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=john+cox+chess&x=12&y=18 .There are other sources, too, including the Library of Congress. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The publishing world is full of ghostwriters, pen names, collective pen names, "as told to"s, royalty-only credits, posthumous works finished by others, and all sorts of various strageness. To cite an example, Don Pendleton only wrote the first batch of Mack Bolan books, but his name still appears on all the subsequent volumes anyway, for what I can only guess is contractual reasons. I'm not saying any of this is good or bad or right or wrong, or whatever, but the bottom line is pretty clear that just because someone's name appears on the cover doesn't mean they wrote the text in side or even necessarily approve of the text inside. For this reason, a book cover alone cannot be considered a reliable source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This belongs at the RS noticeboard, not here. But since I imagine it is intended in view of the proposed change above, let me give my opinion: an article with a source is sourced, whether or not it is formally expressed. It should be formally expressed, but that's just a question of editing. I remove "unsourced" tags from articles with informal references and substitute one for "improve references". The question of who wrote the book is a detail that has to be settled, but i don't see what it has to do with the reference being informal or not. To speedy delete, in particular, because the reference isnt formatted, is absurd and unproductive. Justfixit. Some stats: checking 10 new articles on people marked unreferenced, I found that 3 of them were referenced somewhere in the text (including, for example, mention & quotes from a NYT obit.), and for 2, what was listed as external sources were in fact usable references. DGG (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• In the example you listed the sources are obvious and an editor wouldn't have to trawl through 1000s of Google hits to find the right information. So I'd consider that article sourced, even though it's badly formatted. Also, cases where external links are clearly the source of the information, I agree with DGG, it would be sourced. Bad formatting should not lead to deletion as it is easier fixed than almost all other issues raised in deletion debates. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Philcha, what WP:DELETE actually says is "improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable ..." (bold added). We don't want to suggest that attack pages, spam or total copyvios should be "improved". - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Attack pages; also, salting

An article I just deleted began: "Laura Moore (also known as Snora, Lozza, Laura Snora Pants Like My Aunty Nora), is a human actor and historian. Work: Generally Very little, but there is evidence that suggests that Laura may have worked at pubs and Canterbury Cathedral". This was tagged as db-nonsense (G1), but it's an attack page (particularly since the page had been deleted 3 times previously, twice as an attack page). Are we agreed, and do you guys mind if I pass this information on to taggers who mistag as G1? Actually, I'm not a fan of the G1 criterion because it's a trap in so many ways for the unwary tagger, but if we're going to have it, I think it might be good to add "Pages that make fun of someone should be tagged as attack pages (G10), not nonsense (G1)."

Second question, regarding salting: unless there's a compelling reason otherwise, I salt (protect against re-creation) after a page has already been speedied twice, and I think that's roughly what others do. Laura moore was already speedied as an attack page twice, but the last time was in Aug 2007. Do I salt? My vote would be yes; otherwise we've got probably a teenage girl who never knows when she's going to be mocked in Wikipedia. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Salt as required. Salt more for zero notability. Rd232 ^talk 15:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be careful about this; that's fine for attack pages, but if it's an actually notable person, you're preventing any non-admin from writing a decent article. It might be better to check first whether the person is notable, and if they are, watchlist it to get rid of any further garbage promptly. Rebecca (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

In my experience almost all attack pages are for non-notable people. We shouldn't salt unnecessarily, but it can be undone; non-admins can request it (though I'm not sure if there's a procedure, or if there's any particular help given in that regard when people try edit a salted page). Rd232 ^talk 17:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

At a minimum I add the page to my watchlist. I usually don't salt the first go-round, but I'm quick with the block-hammer if they recreate it. If I do salt one like this, I usually do it for a short time (a few weeks or months) so I don't prevent the creation of an article on a notable person.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why anything should be salted first time; it's for dealing with a demonstrated re-creation problem, as far as I'm concerned. Watchlisting is a sensible precaution, especially if it was a nasty attack. Rd232 ^talk 17:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how helpful it is to salt, because they often get recreated with an alternate form of the name. Further, there may bne someone else of the same name who is notable. Like any full protection, it's not for use unless necessary. I do not use it until warning messages fail, and blocks fail because another account is used. DGG (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons I rarely salt the first time -- I'd rather know if they recreate the attack page than have them change it slightly and it slips through.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see occasions where first time salting would make sense. If someone created Ron Ritzman is a shithead (or any other name) it's extremely unlikely that a good faith article could be created under that title. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That's one of the few cases where I'd salt -- if I just can't imagine any way a non-vandalism, non-attack article could ever have that name. Now that I've said that, watch, next week the band Ron Ritzman is a shithead will have a number one album... ;-P --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd expect this to be even less productive than salting a title like Ron Ritzman. People who create articles like that are dumb - delete it and indef block them, and if they still don't like him when they come back a day or a week later, they'll more likely than not recreate it at the exact same title, so it'll pop up on your watchlist and you can delete and indef again. Salting it just prods them into recreating it somewhere else like Ron Ritzman is a dolt or such, where you won't notice it. —Korath (Talk) 05:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Side note, I "got the t-shirt" :)

00:30, 16 August 2008 Exploding Boy (talk | contribs) deleted "Ron Ritzman" ‎ (CSD G10: Attack Page) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Another question came up today on attack pages; WP:CSD#G10 begins: "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity." I notice on the talk page that there were questions about whether attacks on Stetson hats, or theories, constituted attack pages; "entities" doesn't make it clear. Can we say "people or groups of people"? That would include defamatory statements about businesses or ethnicities, but not hats. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Software

A7 doesn't currently cover software. Is there previous discussion I've missed about extending it to software (probably), and would it be time to consider (again?) whether it should? Rd232 ^talk 15:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would really appreciate some help on db-spam for software, and from the point of view of helping with hard db-spam calls, A7 for software would be great if it's acceptable. Besides, these days, the distinction between software that's largely tied to a website (and might be db-web'd) and software that isn't doesn't seem like an important distinction to me. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Most recent discussion I found was Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_24#Add_non-notable_software_products_to_A7. There was also Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_33#Clarify_A7 a bit more recently, but that was only tangentially about software.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The final comment from the first (Sep 07) discussion included this (which I think summarises that discussion): "it is hard to tell what constitutes an assertion of notability absent a sometimes awkward boast about how many people are using it or how important it is. Not impossible, just more work and potentially more controversial than CSD is set up for." The other one's a fairly unilluminating exchange about where online games fit in. Rd232 ^talk 17:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The difficulty really is that so often software articles are just self-promotion. But there is some reluctance to db-spam them because it's not obvious whether there isn't something worth keeping - partly because we don't have accepted Wikipedia:Notability (software) guidelines. I don't know where to go from here, unless we want to try and resurrect/redevelop that notability proposal. Rd232 ^talk 17:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think A7 should cover software, because it's very hard to tell whether a software might be important/significant and it's usually a topic where there is much controversy. I don't see a reason to change this anyway, unlike people, companies or web content, new software articles are usually not very frequent and half of them are blatant spam anyway. New criteria need to address frequent situations, the same applies imho to expanding old ones. And I don't see those articles as frequent enough to get into this battlefield where there is much controversy. I doubt it would fulfill the "uncontestable" criterion as well. Regards SoWhy 23:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• • There is no way that one or two people can properly judge. This is a field that requires an awareness of the subject, to see if suitable references are likely to be findable. Like other creative works, it is therefore not appropriate for speedy. The frequency with which software afds are contested vigorously makes it clear that the community needs to look at these. DGG (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Jack Horner (horse)

This one got a {{db-context}} 2 minutes after creation, I moved it to AfD. (The tagger does excellent work otherwise.) Many RFA voters are insistent that new articles not get tagged 2 minutes after creation for not having enough information. How long should taggers wait, and do we need a WP:FILTER or bot that checks to see if db-context, db-empty or db-nonsense are being applied too quickly, and if they are, it substitutes a gentler warning and only adds the db tag later? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

What harm does early tagging do? It ensures the problem isn't missed. It also makes it more likely the article creator will see the tag while they're still active. If the article is fixed, or the tag wasn't appropriate, then the tag can be removed by anybody. Sometimes an admin should wait before speedy deleting an article, but that's a separate issue. --Rob (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The theory is that a tag two minutes after the creator's first edit on the article, maybe first edit on Wikipedia, that implies that it's so bad that it has to be deleted is bitey. It will probably be hard for a tagger to pass RFA these days if they've got a bunch of 2-minute db-context, db-empty or db-nonsense tags. But we could probably talk RFA people into accepting reasonable alternatives, such as recommending a milder tag, something like "here are the things an article usually needs to have not to get deleted"; and maybe that article would then automatically show up in the db-context or whatever queue 1 or 2 hours later (thanks to some WP:FILTER or bot), unless the tagger double-checks later, finds the article satisfactory, and removes the tag. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any indication that the author is going to add more. I would say this is an A7 because the article is pretty much about the person who raised the horse. I would say 5 or 10 minutes at least should be given since the last edit to make sure the person is not planning on adding any more content. Though in other cases like "I have a cat" or "I raised a horse", I would say the common sense allows us to just act. We really do need people to start with at least a basic stub vaguely resembling an encyclopedic article. Chillum 19:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a great idea; my only hesitation was that I patrol all the non-image CSD cats except for A7, and I didn't want A7 patrollers to think I was dumping a really annoying article on them for no reason. But I guess you're right, and I'll suggest that at the AfD. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if the author never added more, I don't see this is eligible for a no context. I know nothing about horses or racing, and I can tell this is about a horse named "Jack Horner". And frankly, I'd decline an A7 also, because the only reason it appears to be about a person is unclear writing. This is a case where the NPP'er should have taken 30 seconds to research and either improve the article or prod it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

What Fabrictramp said. It had context at creation and it's not an A7. The problem is that some taggers interpret "no context" very liberally, while it's actually a very strict criterion and fails if you can understand what the article is about. And that is clear here. Regards SoWhy 19:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And it the spirit of taking 30 seconds to improve it, I found a different, notable horse named Jack Horner and wrote the article at Jack Horner (racehorse), which was redlinked at the Jack Horner disamb page.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a final comment here. The AfD just closed early, with a slightly incorrect summary that there were no keep !votes (I had said redirect, which is a flavor of keep). But since there's no prejudice against recreation, I'm going to recreate it as a redirect.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirect away! Old unrelated content being deleted does not disallow a redirect, and it certainly sounds like a good idea. Chillum 20:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Animals with no assertion of notability

I have been encountering here and there articles about animals, not species mind you, but individual animals that make no assertion of notability. Articles like:

Buttons is a horse that lives in a field outside my house. He likes to eat hay!

or

My cat is 4 years old and likes to jump onto the counter. His name is Timmy.

or

Michael Gleeson of Singland Stud farm outside Limerick, Ireland bred "Jack Horner" as a yearling.

Sometimes these articles go into great length regarding the grooming habits and the finer points of the animal's personality. However there is no assertion of notability. Often these articles end up in AfD sitting around for a week while everyone states how obvious it is that it should be deleted and ask why such articles are not speedyable.

I propose that A7 be amended to require that at least an assertion of an animal's importance is needed to avoid deletion. This does not of course cover articles about a species of animal. Chillum 20:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The first two cases I would speedy as a test page (or vandalism, if I knew the editor had a history that would warrant that assumption.) The last one I still say should have at least a quick search to see if a rewrite is in order. In this particular case, the article was easily rewritten to be about a different notable animal. But even if that wasn't the case, prod or speedying as a test page (with a nice note to the article creator, advising them that a bit more context and sources would be super) would still work.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering articles about people's pets are very common and do not fall under vandalism or test edits as defined by CSD then yes I do think it is needed. The problem is not a lack of context or sources, it is that the animal in question is often just a family pet with no encyclopedic value. CSD does not really apply as it is and calling them test pages or vandalism would be a misuse of CSD. Prod takes 5 days and such articles should not be up for that long. Most of these pages are A7'd anyways because admins just use common sense. I think that policy should reflect this practice.

I fail to see why we would require an assertion of notability from a person, but not a cat. Chillum 20:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Are we gonna have to start using the term "mammal" rather than person? Anyway, we're talking about like "specific" animals, not a species or anything.

“ An article about a living being (such as a person or a specific animal, but not an animal species), organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software and so on. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion. ”

This better? ViperSnake151  Talk  20:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly an improvement in my opinion. It would allow these articles to be quickly dealt with within policy instead of using WP:AfD or WP:CSD#IAR as is done now. Chillum 20:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt such articles are created frequent enough to warrant a change to A7 or a new criterion. Just prod those few that are created, it deals with it quickly enough. SoWhy 20:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The rewording also prevents A7 from being applied to dead people. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, I've seen 3 animals recently, and Chillum says he's seen a lot. I'd just add "animal" ... the fewer words, the better. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

SoWhy, articles about people's pets are very common, I would say even more common than garage bands. It is the first thing that occurs to many people to write about. Chillum 21:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Moo! Wikidemon (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Funny, in my experience bands outweigh animals by far. In the 1000 or so speedies I declined, I can only find two for animals tagged as A7. I doubt it's really that much... SoWhy 21:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe animals just like Chillum better than us? (I'm in the bands far outnumber animals camp. Unless you're counting the pages about middle school students who are called animals... *grin*)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I also think that animal or specific animal would be better than all that added above. The part about living should not be there either. We can say at the end "This does not apply to articles about animal species" if "individual" is not clear enough. Chillum 21:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

How about we just replace the word "person" with "individual", so we don't increase the word count. --Rob (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is common enough to change the wording over. I've done lots and lots of newpage patrol and CSDing and I haven't seen this come up really at all. If I did I probably had such an easy time figuring out another reason to delete it that it wasn't memorable (e.g. test page, as Fabrictramp says). I'd also be comfortable using common sense in obvious cases. If we have to I'd go for 'individual' so as not to increase the word count, but it still makes it murkier. Seems CREEPy. delldot ∇. 14:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Instruction creep is when rules creep in from policy. The fact is that many of these articles are just quietly A7'd anyways. I just thought policy should document this practice. Till policy reflects this practice we will just have to rely on WP:CSD#IAR. Chillum 15:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because some admins ignore policy if they don't like it, does not mean we have to change policy to reflect that. Quite the opposite, we should encourage those admins to use the proper deletion methods, i.e. WP:PROD or WP:AFD, instead. IAR does not mean "If you don't like a rule, ignore it". SoWhy 16:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

First off, policy is meant to describe our practices, not to proscribe them. This is a very important point. Secondly, nobody should ignore policy because they don't like it, rather policy should only be ignored when it prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. I would say that deleting "My cat is a tabby, it likes to eat birds. His name is Albert and he purrs" is improving and maintaining Wikipedia, and if a rule prevents me from doing that then I am allowed to ignore it. This is not for just admins, this is for all users. I welcome the scrutiny of the community for any such action, my contributions are open to all.

I would be silly to leave that up for 5 days. If it said "Timmy is a dog who saved a man from a fire and got on the news" then that is an assertion of importance and should be investigated. It is my goal as well to bring practice in line with policy, I would just rather move the policy than go around changing the actions of dozens of people. Chillum 17:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Policy is written consensus. It's what the community decided should be followed by all people. If you ignore it, you ignore consensus and you need a good reason to do it. "It would be silly" is not a good reason to ignore policy. There are tons of pages someone might find silly, ranging from userboxes to "secret pages". But still you cannot go around deleting them just because you think it's improving Wikipedia. The reason we have strict criteria is that there was no consensus to speedy delete anything else. Then you should respect it unless keeping them for five days really damages Wikipedia. Articles about animals do not harm Wikipedia, so there is no reason to apply IAR. Regards SoWhy 17:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm worried that we are going to wind up with endless lists of the stuff that can be speedied under A7. Why not just amend A7 to speedy anything where the notability of the subject, whatever it might be, is not asserted? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Mmm, can of worms, tasty... Could work if there was an easier way to userfy pages, as an alternative to speedy deletion - maybe with a change to Twinkle? But really such userfied pages would need some kind of auto-deletion, after a week say. Long enough to work on, but outside the mainspace. Rd232 ^talk 19:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'd have a strong objection to changing the current "importance" to "notability". That will slam the door on a large number of good faith attempts to create an article because most new editors have no clue about what we consider notable. As to expanding A7 to cover anything, I don't think I'm comfortable with that. It's already misused (often through poor understanding of the criteria) on people as it is; if you expand it to include subjects where Joe Q. Editor won't know if there's a clear claim of importance (say, nuclear physics or Hindu religious festivals), it could become a deletion nightmare. (Take this with a grain of salt. I'm in the camp that thinks speedy should be for the most blatantly hopeless things and for the articles where there's harm to the 'pedia to leave it up for 5 days.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Make it "importance" then. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 01:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

SoWhy, I have nothing against articles about animals. It is articles that are not in the least bit encyclopedic that are the problem. If you have any problem with a specific use of IAR then I will certainly listen, but I don't think I can accept that policy is policy is policy and should not be ignored. Articles that are not encyclopedic do damage the encyclopedia. Chillum 19:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain how using PROD instead damages the encyclopedia? SoWhy 20:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

5 days of content that does not belong in an enyclopedia is in the encyclopedia. I would think that fact would be evident. Chillum 20:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

And how is that damaging? What gets broken/who gets hurt if it exists for 5 days? We keep a lot of pages for 5 days that are not encyclopedic under WP:NOT and use PROD instead and yet noone argues that this practice damages Wikipedia. Yes, I understand that those pages are not encyclopedic, but that does not make them damaging (like copyvio or attack pages). SoWhy 20:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the benefit of keeping it around for 5 days? Chillum 21:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

In the first two examples you gave, absolutely no benefit. In the third example, however, if this was a notable animal it gives people, especially the article creator, time to learn what arcane things Wikipedia requires, time to search them out, and time to add them. Sure, they could start from scratch if the article is deleted, but they've already been slapped down by deletion and aren't nearly as motivated to figure out what needs to be done.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

A7 isn't necessarily the criterion to use:

Buttons is a horse that lives in a field outside my house. He likes to eat hay!

Whose house? Where? The article doesn't say. How can editors expand it? They cannot. It has no context.

My cat is 4 years old and likes to jump onto the counter. His name is Timmy.

Whose cat? Again, there's no context. There's simply no way of identifiying the subject.

Michael Gleeson of Singland Stud farm outside Limerick, Ireland bred "Jack Horner" as a yearling.

This, in contrast, has context. There are names and places here. It's possible that this is widely-documented creature. Editors other than the creator can use the names given to look for sources, and find out. And, indeed, that's exactly what at one editor did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Horner (horse).

Uncle G (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no indication that is the same horse. None of the other information in the original article was found, only a horse with the same name. It was created with sources that did not mention the facts in the original article. The original article was deleted, and another article about a documented horse was written. Chillum 22:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose all that is a bit off topic. It does not seem that my idea is gaining much ground, so I will leave it for another day. Chillum 22:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't understand why animals weren't included when the rule was written. The policy doesn't mention it, but there is a clear consensus for it based on the existing AFD debates about such articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

1-hour warnings

For db-context and db-empty, and maybe db-nonsense, could we either make it standard operating procedure (and automate this) to move the questionable stuff into a subdirectory of the creator's userspace and and then have the articles self-destruct if they haven't been improved in say 24 hours, or maybe leave the article in mainspace and give the creator a little time to add material? It's difficult to pass RFA these days if someone has a history of adding db-context or db-empty tags 2 minutes after creation, and I don't like the idea of CSD being a kind of trap for the unwary tagger. And the RFA voters have a point, you know: some current CSD practices come across as a little bitey. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 13:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important to keep our encyclopedia free of empty and nonsensical pages. Pages lacking context could be given some time, but if your article is at the stage of a blank page then it belongs in your userspace. If it is nonsense then it really does not belong at all. I am all for allowing time for people to add context when an article is lacking, but I don't think there should be a set time period as even with articles lacking context there will be times when it is simply better not to have it in the mainspace. Chillum 15:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense probably should be considered separately from context and empty. If people are applying the nonsense tag correctly (for an article like "sdfgdsfkgdyhkflmaololol;;'dsfg", instead for an article like See-through frog), I don't see a problem deleting it within a minute.

Context and empty are a bit different than nonsense. There I see two issues -- one is that the tags are often misused (or used when the editor could just as easily have added one sentence to make it a valid stub). A delay isn't going to help, although sometimes educating the tagger does. The other issue is that new editors often need a number of edits over a period of time to get even a valid stub together. (I blush to think how many edits it took me to add my first reference on Wikipedia). Assuming that the speedy tag itself doesn't scare off the new editor, then a delay might be helpful. Ultimately, the solution is to get the NPPers to patrol 50 articles or so back. I wish I had the magic wand for that -- my theory is there's an adrenaline rush in tagging that article seconds after creation, and working on articles that are a couple of hours old doesn't match that video game type of thrill.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that was helpful. The first-person-shooter approach to tagging gets criticized a lot at RFA. On the other hand, right after the newbie editor has created their page is the most likely time you can catch them and engage them. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)