- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗ plicit 14:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Another stale BLP draft. Subject doesn't appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC. There is no significant biographical coverage in any publications by unrelated parties; let alone several of them. If the result here is otherwise, it should move to its article space. JFHJr ( ㊟) 06:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - None of the external links are valid references, so this is an unreferenced BLP. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as a
BLP violation. —
Sundostund
mppria (
talk /
contribs)
00:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- What’s the violation? I don’t think there is one. “BLP” does not mean violation. Wikipedia:Crying "BLP!". SmokeyJoe ( talk) 14:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- An unreferenced BLP is a BLP violation, and the external sources are not valid references.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
17:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- User:Robert McClenon, can you please point me to where WP:BLP says this? SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
-
User:SmokeyJoe - Did you check the references?
Robert McClenon (
talk)
01:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- I did, yes the references are not references. My question is on the letter of BLP. I don’t think it says what you imply. Maybe it should?
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
10:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Okay. I am puzzled now. I can't seem to find the section in
the BLP policy that says that drafts must meet the same verification standards as articles. I know I have seen it, but I can't find it. I think that we can agree that the intent of the BLP policy is that draft BLPs must have references. Where does it say that?
Robert McClenon (
talk)
01:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thus spake the current live version: "Applicability of the policy BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts." Amen. JFHJr ( ㊟) 06:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- I am on a slow quest to have
WP:BLPPROD extended to all namespaces, not just mainspace. I can’t remember offhand what the reason opposing this was.
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
12:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- I see that it says that it applies to user space. Where, exactly, does it say that BLPs without references should be deleted? And what got us here is a BLP without valid references, because it has 404-compliant references.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
17:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Unsourced BLP content should be removed. Sometimes that's the whole article. The main ideas are distilled here: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. In practice, any bullshit cite can result in a decline. But this is the same principle used at AfD etc. JFHJr ( ㊟) 03:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- I see that it says that it applies to user space. Where, exactly, does it say that BLPs without references should be deleted? And what got us here is a BLP without valid references, because it has 404-compliant references.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
17:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Okay. I am puzzled now. I can't seem to find the section in
the BLP policy that says that drafts must meet the same verification standards as articles. I know I have seen it, but I can't find it. I think that we can agree that the intent of the BLP policy is that draft BLPs must have references. Where does it say that?
Robert McClenon (
talk)
01:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- I did, yes the references are not references. My question is on the letter of BLP. I don’t think it says what you imply. Maybe it should?
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
10:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
-
User:SmokeyJoe - Did you check the references?
Robert McClenon (
talk)
01:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Very stale BLP draft in userspace with little apparent prospect of becoming a viable article. Martinp ( talk) 10:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: delete. ✗ plicit 14:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Another stale BLP draft. Subject doesn't appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC. There is no significant biographical coverage in any publications by unrelated parties; let alone several of them. If the result here is otherwise, it should move to its article space. JFHJr ( ㊟) 06:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - None of the external links are valid references, so this is an unreferenced BLP. Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as a
BLP violation. —
Sundostund
mppria (
talk /
contribs)
00:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- What’s the violation? I don’t think there is one. “BLP” does not mean violation. Wikipedia:Crying "BLP!". SmokeyJoe ( talk) 14:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- An unreferenced BLP is a BLP violation, and the external sources are not valid references.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
17:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- User:Robert McClenon, can you please point me to where WP:BLP says this? SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
-
User:SmokeyJoe - Did you check the references?
Robert McClenon (
talk)
01:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- I did, yes the references are not references. My question is on the letter of BLP. I don’t think it says what you imply. Maybe it should?
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
10:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Okay. I am puzzled now. I can't seem to find the section in
the BLP policy that says that drafts must meet the same verification standards as articles. I know I have seen it, but I can't find it. I think that we can agree that the intent of the BLP policy is that draft BLPs must have references. Where does it say that?
Robert McClenon (
talk)
01:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thus spake the current live version: "Applicability of the policy BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts." Amen. JFHJr ( ㊟) 06:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- I am on a slow quest to have
WP:BLPPROD extended to all namespaces, not just mainspace. I can’t remember offhand what the reason opposing this was.
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
12:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- I see that it says that it applies to user space. Where, exactly, does it say that BLPs without references should be deleted? And what got us here is a BLP without valid references, because it has 404-compliant references.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
17:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Unsourced BLP content should be removed. Sometimes that's the whole article. The main ideas are distilled here: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. In practice, any bullshit cite can result in a decline. But this is the same principle used at AfD etc. JFHJr ( ㊟) 03:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- I see that it says that it applies to user space. Where, exactly, does it say that BLPs without references should be deleted? And what got us here is a BLP without valid references, because it has 404-compliant references.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
17:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Okay. I am puzzled now. I can't seem to find the section in
the BLP policy that says that drafts must meet the same verification standards as articles. I know I have seen it, but I can't find it. I think that we can agree that the intent of the BLP policy is that draft BLPs must have references. Where does it say that?
Robert McClenon (
talk)
01:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- I did, yes the references are not references. My question is on the letter of BLP. I don’t think it says what you imply. Maybe it should?
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
10:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
-
User:SmokeyJoe - Did you check the references?
Robert McClenon (
talk)
01:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Very stale BLP draft in userspace with little apparent prospect of becoming a viable article. Martinp ( talk) 10:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.