Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:BLP)
Jump to: navigation, search
BLP issues summary
Discussions
Guidelines (Also see policies.)
Policies (Also see guidelines.)
Projects
Tools
Other
WikiProject Policy and Guidelines
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Policy and Guidelines WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 

Quick categorisation question[edit]

Not sure if this has been addressed somewhere already, but when the name of a living person redirects to a non-biography (e.g. a {{r from member}}, {{r from writer}}, etc.), does Category:Living people go on the redirect? Seems like such redirects need to be watched more closely than normal, e.g. for target change vandalism, addition of libelous categories, etc.

(For what it's worth, WP:PETSCAN says there are 309 redirects which are in both Category:Living people and a subcategory of Category:Redirects from people, though the low number is probably because the majority of our millions of redirects haven't been tagged and so aren't in Category:Redirects from people). Thanks, 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

single entry categories[edit]

Is it just I, or has anyone else noted the sudden appearance of new categories which get "populated" with extremely few persons, and where the existence of the category seems possibly pointy? Collect (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

"Hometown"[edit]

Wikipedia has many notable residents. I think this is a general rule not really stated, but I think this help page would benefit from simply listing that is okay for an biography holder to be "notable" in more than one town. Such as someone who was born in one city and grew up in another. Or if that person has spent several years and contributed to whatever they are famous enough to be in a Wikipedia article for. Just some suggestions,Littledj95 (talk) 01:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia as a source, sometimes[edit]

Please visit Talk:Justin Knapp and weigh in on the discussion about whether or not his two RfAs should be included in the article, if they need references, and if Wikipedia pages are satisfactory references in this case. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Basic notability rule[edit]

I think it would be good to have a clear and direct restatement of the basic policy in favor of neutral articles and against using bios as a means of self-promotion here. My WP:PGBOLD proposal is here, so you can see what I'm envisaging more clearly. I'm definitely open to editing and improvements. My original text said:

If no reliable third-party or independent sources can be found about a living person, then the article must be deleted or merged to a notable subject. In addition, the notability standards are higher in some circumstances, such as by disallowing articles for people about whom relatively little has been written in third-party sources or who are relatively unknown.

The problems I want to solve are:

  • My guideline says that his employer's website is enough for sourcing, because HESIMPORTANT.
  • The guideline that excludes my bio is "just a guideline" and has "occasional exceptions".
  • Sure, 90% of the material in the article comes from the webpage on his employer's website, but he got mentioned in one sentence each for these three newspaper articles.

...etc.

In taking the "stronger" language of "must be deleted or merged" away, I'm hoping to provide clarity: If you can't even get your name in the newspaper, then the article about you must be removed, no matter what other arguments you put forward.

I realize that this could have the effect of removing on a small number poorly sourced, albeit generally uncontentious, articles, in addition to the self-promotional spam (whose tide I hope to slightly stem by providing clarity). For example, there may be a couple of stubs for film actors that meet the (former) "name listed among a cast of thousands in two different movies" criteria, but for which nobody can find a newspaper article that mentions them, not even in their hometown newspapers. But mostly I think the effect will be to discourage newbies (and paid editors) from creating inappropriate bios in the first place, and to simplify the discussion at the clearer AFD cases.

What do you think? Can you find a better way of addressing the minimum notability requirements in this policy? WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Ryk72, perhaps you disagree with me, but I actually meant must, as in "as absolutely mandatory as anything can be, when it isn't directly enforced in software, with basically zero exceptions", not "should I guess get deleted most of the time, because it's usually a good idea, but of course someone might really want to have an article on some living person even though the only sources any editor can find, despite a good and diligent search, is something written by that person/his employer/his mother".
Can you (or anyone else) actually think of a good reason why we should have an article about a BLP when there is (to the best of anyone's knowledge) absolutely zero WP:Independent sources about that person? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, Taking the suggestions from a guideline and presenting them in a policy here as an imperative is perhaps a step too BOLD, for mine. There's a level of prescriptiveness in "must" that isn't present in our other P's & G's; including in WP:N. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 18:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
How do you feel about copying this sentence almost word-for-word out of a core content policy, rather than some just "suggestions from a guideline"? (Also, you may wish to read what WP:POLICY says about using the word must.)
I would also be interested in hearing an example or two of when Wikipedia truly should have a separate, stand-alone article about any BLP when we can find absolutely zero sources that weren't written by that person/his employer/his family/his associates. Any example will do; if you've got a good case for writing a Wikipedia article exclusively from sources written by the subject and his (or her) close connections, then I'll certainly change my mind. WhatamIdoing (talk) 11:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing, copying this sentence almost word-for-word out of a core content policy - which policy? Also, put the straw man away - I am not suggesting that a Wikipedia article should be written exclusively from sources written by the subject and his (or her) close connections; I am suggesting that this policy should not say must be deleted. So, yes, I guess I do disagree with the stance outlined above - While I share concerns about puffery & peacockery articles, I don't believe that it is best to coatrack addressing those issues onto this policy, which deals wholly with contentious information about living persons. I don't conceive that mundane puffery & peacockery creates the same degree of apprehension of harm that contentious material does, and I don't concur that they should be addressed with the same imperatives. I believe that inclusion here confuses the purpose of this policy, with the effect of undermining its core message. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC) add Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:V and WP:NOR both, of course. You might prefer the formulation at WP:NOT, though: "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources".
But let's follow this chain of logic rather than debating verbiage from policies. We seem to fully agree that a Wikipedia article should never be written exclusively from non-independent sources. Now: What if that is the only possible way to write that article, because nobody except the subject and his/her close connections have ever published any significant information about that person? What should happen to that article? Keep, merge, delete, something else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
This whole addition is pointless. The relevant material is at WP:N and WP:NOT, as you've stated yourself. Stickee (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)