This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Proposed deletion of biographies of living people page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons | ||||
|
Hello. Had one of my BLPPRODs rejected today because there was an authority control present. Should I add mention of this to the policy, for increased clarity? Thank you. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 19:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
{{
authority control}}
. If anyone thinks authority control should be excluded we would need to get a consensus and then write that exclusion into the policy. Until then, it is a source that makes it ineligible for BLPPROD.
~ GB fan 18:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
This project page ( Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people) has an inaccurate, and therefore confusing title. The title is far more general than what the article actually describes. I'm so confused that I can barely summarize what it is about, but it appears to be exclusively(?) about biographies that have no sources. Right? I've tried to read through big chunks of the article, to see if maybe that's only part of what it's about, i.e. that it says 'if the biography of a living person is unsourced, do this'... 'if it is sourced, do this'... but, it's really only about unsourced articles, isn't it? I don't even think it has a clear link to another article that explains how to nominate such articles if they are sourced. -- 77.162.8.57 ( talk) 09:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect BLPprod and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 30#BLPprod until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. F Adesdae 378 20:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Does this apply to BLP's that are only sourced to primary sources, such as this one and this one? BilledMammal ( talk) 16:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I always though that a source of any kind disqualifies an article from BLPPROD, but today someone pointed out some of these statements to me: 1) contains no sources [...] supporting any statements made about the person in the biography
, 2) biographies that do not contain at least one source directly supporting the material may also be proposed for deletion under this process
. These sentences add a lot more subjectivity to this process than I thought. Now patrollers and admins need to decide not only if the article has sources and external links, but if those sources support certain statements. (What statements, by the way? If a BLP has no controversial statements, does it not then need sources?)
Seems complicated. What's the actual practice for BLPPROD? Does any source disqualify? Or can you use BLPPROD on an article that is refbomb'd with irrelevant sources? I'm tempted to delete the two quotes above, but am checking here first. Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 06:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi All. I've been struggling to understand the reason external links prevent an article from being BLPPROD'd. There's many many sports articles, for example, that are have no references at all, and all they have are external links to stats pages. There's no references to indicate any notability, or any references that backup any information in the article. I'm curious why external links block the application of BLPPROD? Mr.weedle ( talk) 03:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
If an article has two sources, one dead and another not relevant, is it eligible for BLPPROD? BLPPROD states an article is eligible if it "contains no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography" How should we read this? An article is eligible if it contains no sources in any form or an article is eligible if it contains no sources in any form supporting statements made at the BLP? AusLondonder ( talk) 11:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Proposed deletion of biographies of living people page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons | ||||
|
Hello. Had one of my BLPPRODs rejected today because there was an authority control present. Should I add mention of this to the policy, for increased clarity? Thank you. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 19:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
{{
authority control}}
. If anyone thinks authority control should be excluded we would need to get a consensus and then write that exclusion into the policy. Until then, it is a source that makes it ineligible for BLPPROD.
~ GB fan 18:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
This project page ( Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people) has an inaccurate, and therefore confusing title. The title is far more general than what the article actually describes. I'm so confused that I can barely summarize what it is about, but it appears to be exclusively(?) about biographies that have no sources. Right? I've tried to read through big chunks of the article, to see if maybe that's only part of what it's about, i.e. that it says 'if the biography of a living person is unsourced, do this'... 'if it is sourced, do this'... but, it's really only about unsourced articles, isn't it? I don't even think it has a clear link to another article that explains how to nominate such articles if they are sourced. -- 77.162.8.57 ( talk) 09:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect BLPprod and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 30#BLPprod until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. F Adesdae 378 20:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Does this apply to BLP's that are only sourced to primary sources, such as this one and this one? BilledMammal ( talk) 16:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I always though that a source of any kind disqualifies an article from BLPPROD, but today someone pointed out some of these statements to me: 1) contains no sources [...] supporting any statements made about the person in the biography
, 2) biographies that do not contain at least one source directly supporting the material may also be proposed for deletion under this process
. These sentences add a lot more subjectivity to this process than I thought. Now patrollers and admins need to decide not only if the article has sources and external links, but if those sources support certain statements. (What statements, by the way? If a BLP has no controversial statements, does it not then need sources?)
Seems complicated. What's the actual practice for BLPPROD? Does any source disqualify? Or can you use BLPPROD on an article that is refbomb'd with irrelevant sources? I'm tempted to delete the two quotes above, but am checking here first. Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 06:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi All. I've been struggling to understand the reason external links prevent an article from being BLPPROD'd. There's many many sports articles, for example, that are have no references at all, and all they have are external links to stats pages. There's no references to indicate any notability, or any references that backup any information in the article. I'm curious why external links block the application of BLPPROD? Mr.weedle ( talk) 03:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
If an article has two sources, one dead and another not relevant, is it eligible for BLPPROD? BLPPROD states an article is eligible if it "contains no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography" How should we read this? An article is eligible if it contains no sources in any form or an article is eligible if it contains no sources in any form supporting statements made at the BLP? AusLondonder ( talk) 11:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)