Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people/RfC: Change duration from 10 to 7 days

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
There is a clear majority in support of changing the duration from 10 to 7 days to put BLPPROD in line with similar processes. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:37, 28 December 2013‎ (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: Change the duration of BLPPROD from 10 to 7 days.

Rationale: In view of the sensitivity of BLP content, there are possibly sufficient grounds to reduce the duration to the 7 days as used for standard PROD. This also has the merit of simplifying our processes, bringing BLPprod's duration into line with prod and AFD.

Background: 10 days was never a number chosen by solid consensus. The discussion can be found here. At the time no one actually advocated 10 days, and there was quite a bit of support for 7 days, support for 2 weeks, and support for 1 month 10 days was chosen as a compromise between the 7 days and the much longer proposed periods. There were no objections and 10 days was adopted.This section modified by Gigs (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC) to include a more detailed narrative of the history.

Note: This is a single purpose RfC proposal. It is not intended to be a discussion for revisiting the policies concerning PROD and/or BLPPROD in general. Any such suggestions should be the subject of separate RfCs.


  • Support. As proposer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Regular prod is only seven days. I don't see why this should be any different. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
    Because you can't just contest a BLPPROD like you can a PROD. The vast majority of editors who create articles subject to BLPPROD are going to be new editors, very many of whom fall into the "weekend warrior" category. This would have the effect of, in many instances, giving such editors less than 48 hours to (1) learn the relevant policy, (2) search for sources, and (3) adequately defend the source against the inevitable argument that the source is somehow inadequate. That's just not enough time to learn our policy. In short, this change will only serve to discourage new editors from joining the project. Even presuming there are benefits to standardizing the duration (nobody herein has articulated these and I dispute the contention that such benefits are obvious), such benefits are outweighed by the damage this policy change would have on the community. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per both above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support If an editor needs more time to fix the article, they can just decline the PROD. Otherwise, it should be standardized. pbp 02:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
    You can't remove a BLPPROD tag without fixing it. Legoktm (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support only on the basis that BLP PROD should equal the usual PROD, and in fact, all kinds of PROD should be equal. If it was ever felt that all PRODs should be 10 days then I may entertain that, but to simplify rules, I think that this as an outlier should join the usual rule. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - To align with standard PRODs. BLPs should be always be properly sourced anyway. - MrX 02:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for consistency with other PRODs. Edge3 (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for consistency, not seeing any good reason for this to be different. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support If there is no good reason for the added length, then it is much simpler to keep things consistent. AIRcorn (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support When the policy was first formulated, the original timing was for 7 days, as I recall. Keeping it consistent with regular prods would be nice. When Father Goose closed the original policy discussion, 10 days was just chosen as a sort of happy median. At the time, he noted that he wasn't opposed to changing this time in the future if it seemed appropriate. -- Bfigura (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: a week is long enogh. PamD 06:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: standard prod is 7 days, and I don't really see the advantage of allowing unsourced bios to exist for 3 more days, or any disadvantage of allowing these to be deleted in 3 fewer days. Let's act consistently and align them. -- Ohc ¡digame! 07:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. A PROD is a deletion without prejudice; if someone is of such borderline notability that the article about them can't survive a seven-day PROD, it's a hazard - David Gerard (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Our systems are way too complex. Bringing BLPprod into line with Prod and AFD as 7 day processes is an advantage. I'm not convinced that there are any other advantages, as long as the unsourced negative stuff gets G10,d in practice the articles that merit BLPprod are usually innocuous. ϢereSpielChequers 09:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support because 7 days is sufficient and consistent with PROD. Re: the "sensitivity" rationale, let's not forget that it is OK to delete any unsourced statement about a living person. Editors are not required to second-guess the potential for harm and there's no need to wait for a request from the subject. - Pointillist (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I just read @Hasteur's oppose and @VQuakr's comment. I think of the time period as being advance notice that allows people to take a short break from editing without returning to find that something has been deleted before they have a chance to fix it, rather than being an allocation of time to find sources. That's why I think the PROD and BLPPROD periods should be the same. If 7 days isn't sufficient notice I don't mind changing them both to 10 days: enough time to take a week's wiki-vacation including both weekends and still have an opportunity to save the article. - Pointillist (talk)@
  • Support - A week for all is the right way to go. Jusdafax 11:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Every other deletion process is 7 days. There is no good reason why a BIOPROD should be longer, especially given the higher standards that are applied to biographies then in other subject areas. (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Precisely because these higher standards exist there needs to be more time for new editors to satisfy them. The proposal does not address this issue. TeleComNasSprVen (talkcontribs) 19:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - more than enough time to find a reliable source. GiantSnowman 12:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • SupportI don't believe it is unreasonable for creators to provide sourcing for all content. They must have the information from somewhere. They should be able to source before creating. The solution lies with better education about article requirements before creation, and seven days should be long enough for them to provide what they should already have. Dlohcierekim 14:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, if merely so that one PROD type is of the same duration as the other PROD type -- especially when the longer clock is currently for the article type we (ideally) treat with more sensitivity. Contra jclemens below, there is always something wrong with an unsourced BLP. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
    • You'll note that I specify 'unsourced things', which is the scope of BLPPROD itself. If you are really asserting that ALL BLPPROD tagged content has problems in addition to being unsourced, I'd be quite surprised, but welcome you to demonstrate what you assert. Jclemens (talk) 02:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, Seven days is in line with all other deletion types and unsourced information can be removed from an article immediately. See no reason why unsourced Biographies should be allowed any more time to simply add one reliable source than it takes for someone to provide numerous reliable sources to prove a subject is notable.Blethering Scot 17:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I never thought it made any sense for this particular kind of deletion nomination to go three days longer than any other by default. All anyone has to do to prevent it or to restore it later is to come up with one single reliable source. That usually doesn't take three days. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. For a BLPPROD tag to be applied, the article must be completely unsourced. I don't see why a BLP that contains no referenced claims about its subject should be allowed to stay in that condition for 10 days before deletion, when an article tagged for ordinary proposed deletion at the same time (perhaps for lack of notability – a lesser concern than unsourced biographical information, I think) will be the first to go. If anything, the time limit for BLPPRODs should be fewer than seven days, not more. Ten days is an arbitrary length of time, and too generous considering the possible, negative repercussions of Wikipedia hosting unsourced information about a living person. SuperMarioMan 22:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
    Question: Is the risk of harm from an unsourced BLP being up 3 additional days necessarily greater? If so, then what of the risk of harm from the proposed 7 day period? If this is the primary consideration, why are we not looking at creating a CSD criterion? —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
A CSD for newly-created and unsourced BLPs would be too draconian a proposal for me, although doubtless there are those in the community who would endorse it. If someone were to start a new RfC with the suggestion of limiting the deadline for BLPPRODs to three or four days, they would have my support, but I suspect that any proposal for such a sharp reduction would fail to achieve consensus. A proposal for seven days, which would bring BLPPROD into line with standard PROD, is better than nothing. What I find unsatisfactory about the present arrangements is that, despite the tremendous importance attached to BLP, and the high standards of verifiability that the policy requires, PROD's attitude to unsourced biographies is disproportionately generous compared to any other kind of article proposed for deletion. Why should a poorly-sourced, non-biographical article be PROD-deleted after seven days, while a completely unverifiable, BLPPROD-ed article has leave to remain for as many as ten? Neither article is useful to Wikipedia in its current state, but the first is not comprised solely of biographical statements that are impossible to verify and are potentially just as wrong as they are right. It should not take as many as ten days to find a reliable source, add it to the second article and remove the BLPPROD tag. The bar for BLPPROD is higher when it should be lower, and I do not understand how this disparity is desirable or justifiable. SuperMarioMan 03:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't see why seven days is inherently preferable to ten days, but it's definitely helpful to simplify our time scales for deletion. Regular PROD and AFD are already seven days long; things will be simpler to understand if we make BLPPROD the same length of time, and it's far less difficult to change the time scale for BLPPROD than to change the time scale for AFD and regular PROD to ten days. People who think that seven days is too short would do better to argue for extending PROD and AFD, because the same is equally true or false for them. Nyttend backup (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support; I agree 100% with SuperMarioMan's comments above. We shouldn't have a more lax standard for biography subjects. 28bytes (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Seven days should be sufficient and is standard with AfD. I'd suggest that we scrap the entire intermediate PROD system in favor of a simple SPEEDY/AfD choice, actually, but that's another argument for another day. Carrite (talk) 07:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support In a perfect world, no article could be created without at least one source - the software would prevent it. Batting such a thing, I am all for shrinking the deadline. I don't buy the argument that people might be too busy to do it in 7 days. They shouldn't be creating articles in the first place if they're not sourcing them. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Sven. Consistency is good, and besides a BLP article for which no reliable sources exist is certain to be deleted if it got to AFD anyway, so the likelihood of losing valuable encyclopedia content is essentially nil. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support per SuperMarioMan. An unreferenced BLP is much more of a problem than most things that get deleted by PROD. If anything, BLPPROD should have an even shorter timeline. For now, however, this is a step in the right direction. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
    Why not make it a CSD criterion then? —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - 7 Days should be long enough to find source!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - No reason it should be different from a regular PROD. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I'd say it should be a shorter period of time than 7 days, but this makes it consistent with standard PRODs. Articles should never be written without sources, especially BLPs; the "not enough time" argument carries no weight with me whatsoever. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Considering what happened with Henry Earl, I would disagree and say that the "not enough time" issue was a problem. (Especially when discussion is accidently closed early.) --Super Goku V (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support References, references, references. If you can't find one in 7 days, you're unlikely to find one in 10. buffbills7701 12:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support There was consensus at the discussion where it was introduced for seven days, there's consensus here, normal PRODs are 7 days, and unsourced material about living persons is a problem. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 12:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
    There was not consensus at the original discussion for 7 days, and there's no consensus here. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • On a pure number based count, there's between a 2:1 and 3:1 ratio in favour of the change; most parties on both sides using sensible arguments. To claim there is no consensus here is a bit baffling. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak support - I feel bad for the editors who take off a week, as I do, but consistency is needed here. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I see no downside here. Sources should come before the article is created. If it goes a week without sources, then something is definitely wrong. Maybe I'm a hardliner, but I'd support making it 3 days or even a criteria for speedy deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Not hugely fussed about the difference between seven and ten days, but good to have a more uniform seven day turnaround for most things. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Changing for consistency sake is a good reason in and of itself, at least regarding this issue. When we have experienced editors surprised that BLPPROD runs for 10 days, that's an issue. BLPPROD is already surprising in too many ways (any crappy unreliable source prohibits placement of the tag, but a reliable source is required to remove it). It's a question of usability, and right now BLPPROD works in surprising and inconsistent ways. To me that is a compelling reason to change it. Gigs (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, logical and rational proposal, most sensible idea really. — Cirt (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support standardizing deletion time frames is a good thing, and I don't see a reason for extending the standard AfD or PROD length. This makes the most sense. Also, standard concerns about having a BLP article without sources suggests that having a shorter time frame rather than longer is better. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support As others have said, we should not have a longer time for one of our most sensistive article cateagories. I agree with Gigs, it's a problem that no matter how bad a source is we can't prod a BLP if it has any sort of source. Dougweller (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
As is said on WP:PROD#Sticky prod, the ordinary prod process can be used on BLP articles, so no matter how many refernces or what quality they are, BLP articles can be prodded, and will last seven days if the ordinary prod is used. (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per SuperMarioMan's comment Holdek (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support; more for consistency with other processes. Yes, I recognise the irony - I have long argued that "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" on Unreferenced BLPs pose a risk, so shortening the period would reduce risk, but risk-reduction is not my main motive here as the most blatant BLP problems would normally be CSD'd (or redirected or sanitised) much more quickly, rather than leaving the mess in the open for 7 or 10 days. bobrayner (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


  • Wrong-headed approach. If any editor has any belief that something is sensitive or objectionable, PROD is the wrong process to use. CSD-G10 and the ignore-3RR aspects of existing policy are much more appropriate tools--PROD is for unsourced things when no one thinks there is anything particularly wrong with it. Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I see two aspects to the rationale. One part is inappropriate as you say; other tools are for sensitive content, and I also do not find that rationale valid. The other part of the rationale is actually a second reason - the other PROD is 7 days, and all PROD durations should be the same. I find that reason persuasive. Your criticism and opposition are warranted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The approach is clear: "there are possibly sufficient grounds..." (emphasis mine). That's why we are having tbis discussion. Thanks for your valid comments. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Then you should withdraw your proposal until a discussion has taken place and reached conclusions. Why are we rushing to implement this when you yourself aren't even sure there are grounds for this move? —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
G10 doesn't always apply, but I strongly support removing any dubious or controversial BLP content that is not properly sourced. Also, BLP PROD does sometimes prod article creators to add sources. True story.- MrX 02:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The rationale given for this proposed change is In view of the sensitivity of BLP content, there are possibly sufficient grounds to reduce the duration to the 7 days as used for standard PROD. But per WP:BLPREMOVE, unsourced negative content about a living person is to be removed on sight. We even routinely blank attack pages for the ~20 minutes until an admin comes along to delete them. BLPPROD is a distinct process from PROD, and one that seems to be working adequately. There is no good reason to reduce the amount of time available for someone to add a source before the article is deleted. VQuakr (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Are you saying that you propose this only because of the rationale, and not because of the actual merits of having it at ten days? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Not exactly. I am saying that I do not see a compelling reason to hasten the deletion of this type of article in the rationale of this proposal, and in the absence of a compelling reason my default is to keep the longer "grace period." To more directly answer your question, no I cannot think of a quantitative reason that ten days is better than seven or twelve. VQuakr (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
This is exactly the right reasoning. Why should those in opposition have to jump through hoops to justify opposing when the supporters haven't even articulated a valid rationale for changing the status quo? —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose no good reason for doing this has been presented. The number of articles sent through BLP PROD with actual BLP violations is tiny, and as noted above these should be removed through other mechanisms anyway. Consistency doesn't overrule more practical considerations, given that there isn't any disadvantage to having different time limits. Plenty of BLP PRODs are contested, and this proposal will result in more salvageable articles being deleted. BLP PROD differs from PROD in that it is intended to be used on articles about encyclopedic topics to address a problem which can be fixed (sometimes very easily), and the extra three days' scrutiny is warranted. Hut 8.5 08:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Equating BLPPROD with PROD is like comparing a apple to an orange. Prod is a nebolus procedure in which a editor can argue for any prod reason (even "Because I don't like it") that can be objected to for any reason and without providing any remediation. BLPPROD explicitly states that the article has zero cited facts and is in violation of the BLP policy because of the referencing (not that it's a negative BLP) and can only be turned down when a citation backing up at least one statement is provided. In some cases finding the reference can be difficult because it means digging into newspapers/books to find a mention. For this reason, I consider the BLPPROD to warrant the 3 extra days to people who want to save pages. We aren't under a great WP:DEADLINE to sweep the content out if it isn't a negative BLP, so we can afford to give the "savers" more time. Hasteur (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose More or less per Hasteur. Any sensible editor would decline a PROD on a non-BLP article if the rationale was the same as the BLPPROD, i.e. the article has no references to reliable sources. Given that we allow deletion under these special circumstances for BLPs, it's reasonable to give extra time for article watchers and BLPPROD patrolers (of which there are very few) to find RSs. (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think all of the above are correct. But Hasteur and Jclemens are especially persuasive. If there is a BLP problem, BLPROD is the wrong process to be using, so the argument about sensitive information is mistaken. BLPPROD is poorly named (it isn't really a PROD--way too many differences) so trying to keep the times in line doesn't seem like a reasonable priority. I'd prefer 14 days personally. Hobit (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
It might help to have an example to discuss. Imagine I come across an unreferenced BLP article. I'm a nice chap so before BLPPROD'ing it I do a very quick web check for easy sources, and I don't find anything that's obviously reliable (ignoring any UGC sources like imdb). So I remove all the unsourced personally identifiable information like the person's age, date and place of birth, family etc., so that what remains is safe to leave for 7, 10, 14 days. At that stage, what's left in the article? - Pointillist (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that BLPPROD is confusingly named; the pre-requisites for nomination are fixed, and the process doesn't actually allow a user to propose why an article should be deleted. It more closely resembles the "delayed speedy deletion" of files for copyright or licensing concerns. SuperMarioMan 22:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time Changing for consistency is not a complete justification unto itself. From a BLP perspective, the issue is that the unreferenced BLP may have defamatory information and may cause harm to the subject: it's the fact that it's unreferenced period, not that it's unreferenced for a specific period of time. Having it up for seven days is no less harmful than having it up for ten, yet those extra three days may be necessary to allow inexperienced editors to actually figure out the relevant issues. Some people may normally only edit Wikipedia on weekends; if an article is BLPPRODed on a Sunday night, 7 days leaves the creator with a maybe 48 hour window to notice the BLPPROD, read and successfully understand what a reliable source is, find one, add it, respond to probable arguments that the source is unreliable, find more... it's not really fair. And another issue with this is we aren't counterbalancing actual vs. perceived risk: just how many articles deleted via BLPPROD would have been improved and kept if sent to AfD? And if the problem is simply that it's unreferenced, then... why isn't this a CSD criterion? In short, I see no compelling reason for 7 days versus 10 days or 0 days other than consistency, and that's not a compelling one in this case. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of the real-world schedule issue. Many editors only "work" one day a week, or miss a few days or a week at a time due to real-world commitments. If they work on Sunday, and you tag it on Monday morning, then the practical result is that they actually only have a few hours' notice, not a whole week. (Few people actually bother to source BLPs that they didn't start.) Ten days offers a grace period in case referencing requires more than a little bit of work, or requires resources that the user doesn't have immediately at hand.
    If the BLPPRODder is doing his job right, then any contentious material is already going to be blanked. So there really isn't and shouldn't be anything "sensitive" about the contents of BLPPRODs—and if there were in any given case, then we've got much bigger sticks to deal with that. I see no reason to rush. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, primarily for the impact on the "weekend warrior" class of editors as raised by Mendaliv. I appreciated xis reminder that not everyone can make Wikipedia a daily habit. And I note with chagrin today's sudden demise of Google News as a search tool for anything older than 30 days (see WP:VPM#Google news archive search?), which is likely to make more difficult and time-consuming the task of coming up with sources from the news media. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
In the rare event that someone turns up on the 8th, 18th or 818thday with reliable sources and offers to source an article deleted per BLPprod then any admin can restore a BLPprodded article so that it can be sourced. Try to do the same on the day after an AFD has been closed and I don't fancy your chances. So why have ten days for BLPprod and 7 for AFD? ϢereSpielChequers 20:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Because the vast majority of situations under which this criterion would be successfully applied are to articles created by inexperienced users who would simply give up when they saw the article deleted. And let me distinguish your implied argument that our position is inconsistent because if we keep it at 10 days, we still disadvantage people coming back after 18 or 818 days: the vast majority of areas with internet access where people will be accessing Wikipedia function on the same workweek that most of the West does. Many people, especially inexperienced editors, only edit Wikipedia once a week. And as you and I have long experienced, inexperienced editors are often driven away by the notorious complexity of Wikipedia process, especially where deletion comes in. If I were an inexperienced editor who came back after a week to discover that an article I had created was up for deletion, and I only had twelve hours, I would probably just throw up my hands and not come back. Furthermore, as I argued above, if deleting unreferenced BLPs is an issue of such pressing urgency, we should be making this a criterion for speedy deletion, and not a standard deletion mode. But the problem is that most unreferenced BLPs probably can be easily referenced, and indeed probably would be if those articles were brought to AfD instead (along with cries for the nominator's head for not doing his due diligence in the first place). Oh, and in response to any argument for why this consideration didn't come up with standard PROD or AfD, the fact is that PROD can be contested by anybody, and AfD as a process does a lot of article rescuing in addition to deletion. This uncontestable informal deletion process needs to take into consideration this significant class of new users. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The deadline for AfD is not 7 days in the same way that it is 10 for BLPPROD. AfDs are frequently extended because there is a lack of participation, there is no such facility for BLPPRODs, and there is much more participation in AfDs than BLPPRODs. (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Precisely - the default for AfD is 7 days and that's generally enough. If they are relisted it's because either there is no clear consensus, or very little particioation, but that said, a 'no consensus' can close with a default to 'keep', and and the nominator's statement and one single 'delete' vote can be condidered as a consensus to delete. In contrast, PROD/BLPPROD are not consensus driven deciscions, and they are very easy to have restored by simple rtequest. Wkipedia is a voluntary activity, anyone who pursues a group oriented hobby has to be available for the group's schedule of activities, it is not practical for Wikipedia to adapt to the timetables of its individual users, even if they work odd hours or in hospitals, or are long distance truck drivers. Most people get at least one day off during a 7-day period, even here in Asia where we are working while Americans are sleeping. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
That PROD and BLPPROD articles are easily restored is correct, but only if you know the process and have not been frustrated out of participation. "Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" means that our processes must not only not be onerous but they must be both adaptable to and learnable by new and inexperienced users. We should avoid biting newcomers, and shortening the period required for a BLPPROD would bite a great many newcomers. The supporters have been quick to jump on the consistency bandwagon (though why consistency is necessary or even beneficial in this policy has yet to be adequately explained), but I have yet to see a reasoned, nuanced response to the issue of the harm this move will do to our mission of being open to new users. The response above is tantamount to saying that users who do not fully commit to the community before endeavoring to create an article have only themselves to blame when that article is deleted, and that the community doesn't or shouldn't give a fuck. I respectfully disagree. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Leaving the bad language out of it, most of the regular contributors who create content or work in meta areas do care, and care a lot - otherwise they wouldn't be here at all. At the end of the day however, PROD, BLPPROD, AfD, and CSD are all here because the Foundation can't give a flip about the need to better inform new users of what they can and cannot create here. The WMF is purely interested in registration and creation stats irrespective of vandals, spammers, or PoV pushers, and won't provide Wikipedia with a proper landing page, and even stands in the way of the community's efforts to do something about it. The encycopedia anyone can edit is not coterminus with anyone can create crap and a huge workload for the volunteers who have to clean it up. Why should we do WP:BEFORE and find refs for rubbish? I know I do, but I feel a real fool for doing it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Mendaliv, arguments about work schedules and not biting can hold true for all other deletion processes, however, those other deletion process are still set to 7 days and are unlikely to change. Therefore, the real burden isn't on why BLPPRODs should be shortened to 7 days to be consistent with other deletion processes, but why BLPPRODs need more time than other deletion processes? Those arguing for 10 days have yet to give an explanation on why BLPPRODs needs to be given more time than other deletion processes. (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
@24: That's actually an incorrect interpretation of how consensus is determined on Wikipedia. Like it or not, the status quo is 10 days for this particular form of deletion. It's stood, as far as I can tell, without serious challenge since it was implemented in March 2010. This proposal argues, incorrectly, that no consensus exists for the status quo. While silence does not necessarily imply acceptance, widespread acceptance and use without question for 45 months at least tips the scales in favor of the status quo. Therefore, the onus lies on the supporters to prove their case. Many support !votes are "per nom" or equivalent, and the nominator's rationale itself lacks any real justification outside of "it makes sense". There have been no studies, as far as I can tell, into how effective BLPPROD has even been at 10 days, nor any arguments as to why 7 days would be any less "damaging" (presuming BLPPROD is even deleting defamatory content). In short, as I have articulated before, the nominator and supporters have been long on claims but short on proof. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Our processes are way too complex, and we need to simplify them. That's my view, the view of many of the support statements and also common feedback I get from many outsiders and newbies. This is a small I'd hoped uncontentious step in simplification. You may not agree with that aim, but please don't underestimate either the importance of simplifying our systems to make them less daunting for newbies, or the fact that that is what mmany if not most of the Supporters are signing up to. If you really think that ten days is better than 7 for such processes then why not file an RFC to change AFD and prod to ten days? ϢereSpielChequers 07:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
You seem to misunderstand my point, as well as the source of these complaints about the complexity of Wikipedia policy. The fact is that most Wikipedia processes operate at a near-breakneck speed, and any attempt to fight back requires at least a grounding in Wikipedia policy. Contesting a standard PROD just requires removing the template: many users figure this out without even reading the template in the first place. But trying to respond to a BLPPROD is a much more complex issue since it can't be simply contested. It requires a much better grounding in policy to fight off, possibly even more than it takes to fight an AfD. Reducing the period to seven days would only serve to disadvantage new users by giving them even less time to figure out our processes. This change only serves to make things even harder. Please do not bite the newcomers. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, because I have come acros numerous instances where a BLP was deleted, nearly deleted, or redirected pretty quickly after its creation, and I was able to add a source and often enough more than one. Most of us have busy lives, and it should not be to inconvenient to allow our hard-working volunteers a few extra days to find something. BOZ (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Why the rush? Ten days is fine. GregJackP Boomer! 21:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Most articles tagged BLPPROD are innocuous. BLPPROD has nothing to do with deleting libellous content (an article can be defamatory but ineligible for BLPPROD, or more commonly unreferenced but undefamatory), and therefore there's no rush to get it over with. BLPPROD effectively functions as a slight variation of PROD to delete articles that are either non-notable or nobody can be bothered to reference, which makes me wonder what the point of it is, but this change will only make things worse. In order to allow people to reference articles, they need more time rather than less. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I see your username was created just as this was wrapping up. I'll save you the impossible hassle of untangling the discussions of 2010 and give you the short version, trying not to editorialize too much. Wikipedia had a massive backlog (well over 50,000) of completely unsourced BLPs. Some administrators began deleting some of them en-masse, with the justification that these poorly watched, completely unsourced, BLPs were a legal liability, and possibly an ethical problem. Jimbo and the foundation basically concurred with the "rogue" administrators, telling the community that we needed to tighten up on BLP issues, both promotional/vanity articles and on libel/potential for libel. Arfcom refused to sanction the admins involved in the deletions. The community reached a sort of uneasy truce, the unreferenced BLP backlog would be addressed, and we'd put processes in place to keep it small in the future, that's where BLPPROD came from. On the other side of that coin, administrator power to unilaterally remove largely negative unreferenced BLP material and/or entire articles was affirmed and documented. Gigs (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Having read all the arguments here I've been convinced to err on the side of the new editors. The primary difference is that finding a reliable source to satisfy the requirements of BLPPROD takes significantly longer time that people don't have, followed by much endless dispute on what sources can be considered "reliable" enough to remove it; whereas with PROD all it takes is one edit-click to remove the giant sign above the article (followed by another trip to AFD). You say "It is not intended to be a discussion for revisiting the policies concerning PROD and/or BLPPROD in general. Any such suggestions should be the subject of separate RfCs" but the duration of BLPPROD is highly dependent enough on other parts of the policies that you need to convince me, in separate RFCs about the policy on why the current duration is harmful to the "sensitivity of BLP content". Despite whatever perceived "harm" BLPPRODS do by remaining on the project for an extra 3 days, do we not do more harm by alienating new users to these myriad and arbitrary rules and regulations, for the sake of consistency? If you still argue consistency for consistency's sake though, we can change it to 14 days (1 week to respond to the BLPPROD, 1 week to find a reliable source (contrast PROD takes 1 week to respond to and do a simple remove)) TeleComNasSprVen (talkcontribs) 19:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per several comments above. No good reason has been adduced for doing this, nor any systemic problem that it would help solve. If any content is negative or controversial and is unsourced, it can and should be removed without waiting for a BLPPROD. Pure attack pages can be and are speedy deleted now. The goal here is not to delete articles, it is to source them. Many articles so tagged are properly sourced now, and reducing the time limit will merely increase the number that are deleted when they could and should have been sourced. Not all sources are online. Indeed, i would favor extending the deadline to 30 days, to allow time for library research. This proposal is a solution in search of a problem, and would in fact harm the project, not help it. DES (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose as discussion should be allowed to continue through the process. Reducing the time allowed for discussion will reduce the quality of comments and replies made by users in the discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose BLP prod is put incorrectly on some articles and I think most of the articles are very lightly travelled. In the cases of BLP violations I have been able to post to the admin board and get them quickly deleted. Otherwise I see no need for the rush. Sportfan5000 (talk) 07:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. BLPPROD should not be being used for harmful articles. For those created without references but without controversial content, the extra few days to allow editors to find sources are not a problem and in my experience many articles are successfully sourced, often by editors other than the creator. From a practical standpoint, as an admin who has intermittently worked on BLPPRODs, I find the extra days when the articles bubble to the top of the PROD summary list are useful for investigating sources and removing misplaced BLPPRODs (a common problem). Espresso Addict (talk) 06:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Ten days was a compromise between those that wanted seven days or a shorter time and those (such as myself) who were looking at a time of around fourteen days or longer. BLPPROD shouldn't be used for immediately harmful articles so giving extra time for someone to source has no real downsides. While I understand the desire to standardize it with regular PROD, I don't see that as a major issue and if it was I would favour standardizing both at 10 days. CT Cooper · talk 18:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose A number of good arguments raised against it - firstly, that BLPPROD shouldn't be used for highly contentious articles and the BLP policy itself suggests such content if libellous or unsourceable should be removed immediately; and secondly, that with a depleted pool of stable editors, demanding more work on tight timeframes from already overworked editors who remain is likely to not generate any positive outcome. Orderinchaos 18:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unreferenced contentious content should be summarily removed from any BLP, not allowed to linger for ten days, seven days, or seven minutes. The BLPPROD process is intended to afford a reasonable interval to provide sources for content which does not breach substantive BLP content requirements, and I see no compelling reason to cut short that process. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. 10 days is a reasonable compromise and I see no reason to reduce it. --Michig (talk) 07:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


I thought PROD was seven days. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Well, yes, now that it is mentioned I see it. But I remember the excitement of the BLPPROD proposal, but not any discussion of a different duration. I looked through the archives and I didn't read much serious discussion, several giving the same reasons as here, and others saying it is as unimportant as the color of the bike shed, don't stall the process, we can revisit the duration later. I've supported, support converting the bike shed color to the same color as the other sheds. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I am curious if there is some background here, as per my oppose !vote I do not really see a problem in need of fixing. Has there been, for example, a spate of BLP vios surviving 10 days before being deleted under the BLP PROD system? VQuakr (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No one knows. There are many BLPprods that don't get sourced and are deleted after ten days. In theory there could be some innocuous looking hoaxes out there, but if someone tries to source an article and fails we tend to assume that that particular musician is not yet notable, we wouldn't necessarily spot that the heavy metal musician that no one has heard of has the same name High school and home town as a preacher who has told his congregation that Rock and Roll is the devil's music. ϢereSpielChequers 09:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I think unsourced should be a PROD criterion for all new articles. The information must have come from somewhere, and the article creator should know from where. Dlohcierekim 15:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
This has been rejected many times before, and for good reason. What one person fails to source, another does. About half the unsourced articles get speedy deleted anyway for lack of indication of importance, promotionalism, etc--people are, reasonably, somewhat more ready to use these criteria for unsourced articles rather than give them the benefit of the doubt. Almost all the other ones get marked as such in NPP, and most of them do get sourced fairly quickly or removed by regular Prod, where a statement like "unsourced and not likely to be notable" is a perfectly good reason. The only real purpose for BLPROD is to avoid some of the types of hoaxes or malice potentially damaging to people, In practice, I think it in practice eliminates very few such--either they're so obvious they go via speedy, or the people if a little subtler do use or pretend to use a source.
What it eliminates mostly is articles on sportsmen or entertainers from the lesser-known countries and languages that few people in WP work with, and very few of them care about. When BLP Prod started, I found that if I wanted to I could source about 2/3 of even these at least minimally--for example, there usually was some sort of record for the athlete, if I checked the team. I stopped this rather soon in order to concentrate on subjects I cared about more; I still try to check every BLP Prod on a subject I care about even a little, and there are very few that would be notable if sourced that I am unable to source if I have the time.
In practice, BLP prod means, not likely to be notable, so lets not bother working on it. Using BLP prod for this is unnecessary, for we would get rid of them just as fast with Prod, which can be for any valid reason. There is one advantage--BLP PROD cannot be removed without adding some kind of source, even one quite inadequate to show notability. Without it, probably 4 or 5 articles a day would get their prod removed unjustifiably and have to go to AfD, which is a very small savings in work. It has not proven effective in reducing the incoming unsourced articles (which was the hope for it), because the people who contribute them do not understand WP in the first place. I continue to think, as I said I thought would be the case before we adopted it, that the overall effect of it is not positive. DGG ( talk ) 20:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Let's not forget the BLP PROD can not be removed unless there is a reliable source. That's an important distinction. - MrX 21:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, no, that's been disputed plenty of times. Suffice it to say that different parts of the relevant policy pages say different and incongruous things. Jclemens (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, yes. It's in the second paragraph of the the policy page. Are you saying that the policy doesn't represent consensus? If so, can you provide a link? - MrX 03:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The way I have been interpreting it, is tat the source must be sufficiently reliable to establish the existence of the person and the nature of whatever activity it is that might them suitable for a WP article. It does not have to be reliable enough to show notability. (reliability for the purposes of showing notability according to the GNG is a specialized sort of thing , necessary to show that the world has paid sufficient attention to justify an article, and has special requirements.) For example, if someone is asserted to be the member of a football team, showing that there is or was such a person on the team at the period specified is sufficient, even if the information is just the team website. Or if an author, by showing a book by that author is in worldcat. Even IMDB is sufficient as evidence a person appeared in a film, although it is not reliable for birthdate or anything else about him. Such evidence is enough to protect against hoaxes or misrepresentation, which is the purpose of BLPPROD. Continuing, if the evidence is that a person is the author of a self-published book, or a bit player in one film, or the member of a high school team, this is not even an assertion of importance enough to pass speedy A7, but it does pass BLP Prod. (In practice, I usually don't bother speedying such articles, but just passively let them be deleted by the prod; but if I come across someone where I think the article is a hoax altogether, I will use speedy. )
@Dlohcierekim, Prod would be the wrong way to go there as anyone can decline a prod and they don't even need a reason why, but as prod is only for uncontentious deletions it can only be tried once on each article. So a declined prod for being unsourced might prevent a later less contentious one. Also this proposal puts the cart before the horse, if we decide to move to all articles starting with a source we should first change the article creation system to prompt the creators for a source, before making it compulsory to have one. However as DGG points out that would undermine our aim to globalise the pedia. ϢereSpielChequers 22:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
@DGG, @WereSpielChequers: All the non-speedy article processes (including the proposal that new articles must be sourced) should be re-examined when the draft namespace is implemented. For example, instead of requiring a BEFORE search by the nominating editor prior to AfD nomination, if an uncontentious article has no reliable sources it could in future be moved almost immediately to draft space – where it is invisible to search bots – pending improvement. This could transform our approach to article deletion. - Pointillist (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
@Pointillist:, I never thought of that in the context of PROD. But you are correct, it will make a difference. We could indeed move such material to the draft namespace, which gets it out of the index. This is a good reason for not bothering to do anything at the present, because we may have a better way of handling it. This would do both for BLP prod, and even possibly for unsourced other articles, though I need to consider it further there, but as far as I can see at first glance it would meet the needs for both. But if we do this, we might have to change the G13 speedy criterion, for an unsourced non BLP is not currently deleted after 6 months if there seems to be no harm in it. The draft namespace opens up many possibilities, and it's a very good thing we will (presumably have it. @Kudpung:, what do you think about this? DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
These points a re all very interesting, but I must admit they hadn't crossed my mind because I was simply focusing first and foremost on getting the duration of the BLPPROD brought in line with the duration of PROD and AfD. When I set the BLPPROD at 10 days it was an ad hoc solution because there was no actual consensus for exactly 7 days and we had to get the thing brought to a conclusion. In my experience, we get things done best by proposing small changes in stages until they make up the whole. It may take longer, but it avoids the confusion of RfCs trying to address too many proposals at the same time. As DGG says, the new draft namespace, being unindexed, will open up lots of possibilities that go beyond its use for AfC (which is what we asked for it for),
If an uncontentious article has no reliable sources it could in future be moved almost immediately to draft space – where it is invisible to search bots – pending improvement. If I have understood correctly this would have the added advantage of making the incubator redundant.
I'm also very concerned still about the poor quality of NPP. I've had to ask two users in the last 48 hours to refrain from patrolling altogether until they have made significantly more than double-digit edits. When we got the new Page Curation system I mistakenly assumed that all new pages were going to unindexed until they had been patrolled. There are many new pages that are wrongly tagged for CSD and PROD/BLPPROD while many pages are simply templated for maintenance where they should have been tagged for some form of deletion. The draft namespace opens up the possibility for a new NPP criterion such as 'move to draft' or 'move to draft for 7 days' for uncontentious articles but which need significant work before they are fit for mainspace, and which would also change the way we perceive PROD & BLPPROD. I like the ideas that have been floated, but let's keep them warm and preferably discuss them somewhere else. The good news is that the draft namespace is due to arrive sometime soon|. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
As for the Incubator, I had always assumed one of the uses for Draft namespace would be to replace it: the general idea is to keep all the in-process material together. "Move to draft" as a NPP option is a good possibility; "move to draft for 7 days" seems less valuable to me, because it makes a group of things there that will need relatively quick action, unlike most of it, and this is likely to be confusing.
The sooner this is all done, the sooner we can train people to use it properly. My feeling is we should get it set up roughly, with the expectation that we adjust and revise. (But there is a certain danger here that once something is set as a procedure, whatever features it has will remain forever--we should avoid this if we can by being explicit that the Draft space procedures are all of them drafts themselves, to be given a trial. DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I have an idea, if the problem is sensitivity to information in unsourced BLPs, why not just NOINDEX any relevant templates so the subjects would not be able to find it? TeleComNasSprVen (talkcontribs) 21:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It would be really useful to NoIndex all unpatrolled articles, and not mark articles tagged for deletion as patrolled but as "tagged for deletion". Sadly the WMF had technical problems with this when they tested it and withdrew it from the new form of newpages - I think it would have required changes to the classic newpages as well as the new one. However the BLPprodded articles are relatively low risk as they've been looked at and those that should have been deleted G10 usually tagged as that instead, it's the articles that no-one has yet looked at that we should worry about. ϢereSpielChequers 06:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
That'd be great, but for this discussion I was thinking about using includeonly NOINDEX includeonly on templates such as {{BLP unsourced}} or {{db-attack}}. TeleComNasSprVen (talkcontribs) 00:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
There are a couple of problems with including NoIndex that way. The first risk is that vandals could do some troubling things if we enabled NoIndex as a choice in mainspace. But the bigger one is the effect of putting noIndex in the template for attack pages. Currently we blank attack pages on sight and delete them pretty quickly. This isn't an ideal system because search engines such as Google will often have picked up the attack and cached it before deletion or even blanking. If we NoIndex the G10 template then the search engines won't replace attacks with blanked pages. That's why it would be better to start all unpatrolled articles as NoIndex, and not mark as patrolled articles that are tagged for deletion. That way attack pages would only be picked up by search engines if someone marked them as patrolled. ϢereSpielChequers 09:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

A late question, but is there any data on the rate of BLPPRODed articles saved, and on what day the reference was added?--Tznkai (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Preparing to close[edit]

There's only been one comment in the past three days, so unless there are objections I will close this either today or tomorrow. Given that there are more than twice as many supporting the proposal as opposing I don't envisage the close as being difficult or contentious. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

  • As proposer I obviously have a COI, but I can't honestly see anything being gained by keeping this open any longer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I thought this thing died a week ago. It should have been closed then, and the outcome decided one way or another. I suppose you could post at WP:ANRFC for it. TeleComNasSprVen (talkcontribs) 02:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

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