Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of biographies of living persons on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 
Category:BLP articles proposed for deletion  · Template:Prod blp  · Template:Prod blp/doc  · Template:ProdwarningBLP

Categorization question[edit]

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

If there's no objection, I might go ahead and change this. Now that file and article PROD's are using the same category, and that entire category can be emptied at the end of the day, I don't see why BLP PROD has to be taken any differently. – Train2104 (t • c) 20:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Thanks for taking the initiative! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 Implemented [1] – Train2104 (t • c) 23:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Articles with only IMDb references eligible for BLPPROD?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Summary:-There is a strong consensus to oppose the proposal that articles with only references to Internet Movie Database be made eligible for WP:BLPPROD.
Rationale:-Allmost all the editors have supported working in the lines of the KISS principle.The argument that the quality of a source is best evaluated at an AfD and that there are several other venues available for getting rid of poorly sourced articles are strong enough.Some of the discussants seem to be considerate towards the enactment of such sticky prods in articles concerned with the corporation and business; which seems to attract a lot of spam.Winged Blades Godric 11:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)



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

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

!vote[edit]

Support[edit]

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

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose. As it is, BLPPROD is already too hard to understand. Changing one of the rules to "No sources means no sources--except IMDb" will only make the process that much more unusably complicated. I'd sooner change the eligibility bar to "no reliable sources" but I don't think that's likely to happen either. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    Comment @Innisfree987: I actually think there's a chance it would happen if proposed. I frequently have to explain and defend myself when I remove BLPPROD tags that shouldn't have been placed because there was a source. It's clear to me that many people think BLPPROD means "no reliable sources". That's why I wrote an essay. Adam9007 (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    I think you're completely right Adam9007 about how it's often interpreted--indeed that's the exact mistake I made when I first tried to use it. Even though I read the directions start to finish three times, it was just too confusing that there are two different sourcing standards, one for applying the tag and a different one for removing it. But that issue is biggest among people who don't usually use the process. My guess is that folks engaged enough with BLPPROD to participate in an RfC may have a different perspective on it, and different priorities. Can't hurt to ask though, if you or someone else wanted to! Innisfree987 (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. BLPPROD is for unsourced articles, not poorly sourced articles, which can be subject to the standard PROD process. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  3. Oppose keep it as simple as possible, no sources saves time Atlantic306 (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per Hullabaloo. The KISS principle applies, and there are few enough of these that modifying this process is inadvisable. Jclemens (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  5. If we were to broaden the concept of sticky prods we should keep it simple, but also keep it targeted at our biggest risks and problems. So if we were to broaden sticky prod it would be better to broaden it against corporations and spam. ϢereSpielChequers 10:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  6. Oppose The case of Ken Parry is not a significant problem. I have no trouble finding additional sources for that actor such as The Stage but many editors seem to struggle with such searches and so it would be disruptive to go tag bombing such cases rather than assisting. Note also that the actor in question is dead and so talk of BLP is in poor taste. Andrew D. (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  7. Oppose AfD works fine for non-notable people. WereSpeilChequers is right in that the most logical expansion would be for corps and spam. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  8. Oppose the policy needs to be kept clear and unambiguous. If we add this then the obvious question is why we don't allow other specific examples of unreliable sources as well (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc). This would result in either an unworkable enormous list of specific examples or a general statement which would be open to argument and misinterpretation. There are plenty of other processes available for getting rid of poorly sourced articles. Hut 8.5 18:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  9. Oppose—considering the difficulties at NPP, less ambiguity would seem to be a good thing. And, if the technique is to be considered, WereSpielChequers would seem to have it right. — Neonorange (Phil) 18:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  10. Oppose If we are talking about the initial tagging. (If we can remove the BLPProD for a link to twitter on initial tagging, then we should definitely remove for IMDB present on initial tagging.) Probably should not be considered RS for the purpose of removing tag if it were properly applied in the first place. The quality of the source is often best left to AfD.Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Neutral[edit]

Discussion[edit]

  • @J947: I was in the middle of writing a reply, when I found I wasn't sure what was being proposed... Is it:
  1. Confirm that IMDb is not a reliable source, to prevent the removal of BLPPROD tags that were added prior to the addition of (only) an IMDb link.
  2. Make an exception for the adding of the tag, so that BLP articles having only an IMDb link may be tagged
I'm guessing it's 2, and going by the votes, others seem to think so too, but it'd be good to make sure. Yeryry (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • 2. Reading below, 1 already is instated. J947(c) 18:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
That's right, 1 is already policy. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok, as I thought... In that case, why just IMDb... Why not include discogs.com, linkedin, amazon, social media, person's-own-web-site, and other unsuitable sources? Yeryry (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
think its simpler as it is otherwise the list of bad sources will grow and grow, there is always a normal prod for badly referenced pages Atlantic306 (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
It would be ambiguous if it was all unreliable sources eligible, as there would be unnessasary discussions whether a references is reliable or not. IMDb is the main problem. Also, PRODs are based on notability and not referencing. J947(c) 03:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
A number of prods are for poor referencing and can lead to improvement of the refs if there is a clear explanation in the prod rationale Atlantic306 (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Normal PROD is all but useless for newly created pages. AfD may work, but is rather overkill for things that should be easy enough to get rid of. BLPPROD is already pretty useless, so anything that lets it be used more is good.
To avoid the problem of which sources should be in the "bad" list, making it "any unreliable source" would actually make the whole thing less complex than it is now, as the criteria for tagging would then be the same as for removal. Yeryry (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Where it's unclear whether a source is unreliable or not , particularly non-English sources, would cause problems as a lot of sources are on the borderline with disagreements about whether a source is reliable or unreliable, apart from the obvious ones Atlantic306 (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Contradiction in description[edit]

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

To be eligible for a BLPPROD tag, the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography.

And then in the very next sentence:

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

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

The article must have no sources at all to be eligible, but is still eligible if an unreliable source is added after the tagging. The second paragraph explains it clearly:
A common source of confusion in application is the different treatment of presence of sources for placement of the tag, versus removal of the tag. The requirements can be summed up as: Only add a BLPPROD if there are no sources in any form that name the subject, but once (properly) placed, it can only be removed if a reliable source is added. This compromise avoids the need for judgement calls about reliability of sources for placement, and limits that issue to the far fewer instances, at the other end, where a source is actually added during the seven-day period.
You may also want to read my essay on the subject. Adam9007 (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
That's utterly ridiculous. A tag on an article shouldn't depend on a past state that no longer exists. I can't think of any other tag with that attribute. The closest I can think of is the {{coi}} tag, but even that can be removed if the article no longer shows COI edits. An article is ineligible for BLPPROD if there are sources, and if there are sources, the tag shouldn't be there.
So it's conceivable to take a vanity bio with one external link, remove that link, slap on a BLPPROD tag, and then add back the link? That's just wrong, man.
I have to ask, would someone please provide a valid rationale how this sorry state of affairs came about, and why it is necessary? ~Anachronist (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I think Kudpung would be a good person to ask. Adam9007 (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
As a point of clarification: as far as I understand it, no, a BLP that previously had one external link would not be eligible for BLPPROD in the first place--you can't just delete a bad link and then BLPPROD it. At that point you have to use regular PROD (or AfD, etc.) This is just for entries that have never had any sources (meaning you have to check the history to make sure no one's deleted dead links, etc.) Innisfree987 (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC) (...none of which I say in defense of the tag, which I often daydream about abolishing altogether. If the procedure's too convoluted for an admin with more than a decade of WP experience to grasp in full on first reading, how can we possibly expect new editors--the most likely to put up an unsourced article--to understand what's being asked of them? But perhaps others can better explain its value. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC) )
For more explanation, perhaps also see the hatnote at the very top of this page that begins "A perennial discussion at this page relates to the dichotomy of having two different sourcing tests" and links to some of those debates. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I see that, thanks. The debates still don't explain why a 'compromise' resulting in an inconsistent policy is preferable to a policy that can be applied with a consistent rule always. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The current wording is a compromise: if you are a D-list actor with no sources in your article, you can't rescue it by putting IMDB on after the tag is placed, but the tag can't be placed if IMDB was ever in the article. Removing a IMDB and then placing the tag on would generally be considered bad form. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

What about twitter[edit]

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

In other words[edit]

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

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