Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people

Thirty days from today, it will be seven years since March 18, 2010. This grandfather clause might have been useful when BLPPRODs were first enacted, but seven years later it might not be useful anymore. Is it time to remove the grandfather clause from BLPPROD? -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support If a
  WP:BLP has been unreferenced for seven years, that's a major problem and should be taken care of by any means possible, BLPPROD being perhaps the most useful. I'll also note that Category:All unreferenced BLPs show the oldest tagged BLP is from December 2014, so it's not like we have a major backlog that would inundate the system. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Fine by me. Not sure how much difference it'll make in dealing with unreffed BLPs (if the oldest tagged one is from 2014) but I'm in favor of removing unnecessary instructions. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. But this needs to be done via an RfC, probably at VPP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can slap an RfC tag on this and reference this discussion at VPP. I doubt that's necessary though. At this point, it's just cleaning up an outdated restriction that isn't restricting anything.

WP:NOTBURO, etc. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Alright, there's been objection so I've done just that. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's very unlikely that any significant numbers of unreferenced BLPs have been sitting around for seven years. There was a point at the end of 2011 where there weren't any unreferenced BLPs at all (apart from some in the deletion process). Any unreferenced BLP from before 2010 either wasn't recognised as an unreferenced BLP until much later or did formerly cite references (perhaps somebody removed them or the reference was some link which has gone dead since). Hut 8.5 18:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - As Hut 8.5 said, this isn't likely to actually apply to many articles, since all older BLPs that were tagged as unsourced were cleaned up or deleted. If any old unsourced BLPs are discovered that were never tagged as unsourced, they can easily be handled by the normal deletion processes. This seems like a proposal that solves no problem, and thus not something that should be changed. I also feel that the policy shouldn't be changed lightly as it was the result of a compromise following long and contentious discussions involving many participants . . . even if that clause is no longer relevant, it would seem inappropriate to change it based on the decision of just a few people. Calathan (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple problem that will be fixed: instead of 7 steps before nominating a BLPPROD, they're only be 6. It makes it simpler for all parties involved. Is there a reason why BLPPRODs before March 2010 (do any exist??) is still such a problem they need to be excluded from this process? -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLPPROD is supposed to only be used on articles with no sources provided, and not on articles which previously had sources but those sources were removed. You still need to look through the article history either way, so there really isn't any extra work to check when the article was created. Calathan (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But if the grandfather clause is removed, there'd be no reason to focus on the date, just the diffs. The process is still simplified. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. A while back, a semi-well-intentioned project essentially eliminated unsourced BLPs by the unfortunate expedient of often adding a trivial source or two to every such article. While many BLPs may carry a BLP-unsourced template, those templates typically apply to a section of the article, not the overall bio. Besides, one of the central purposes of the BLPPROD process was not to delete articles, but to encourage their creators to bring them into compliance with sourcing requirements. That purpose is lost if we start tagging articles created seven or more years ago, where the article creators are very frequently inactive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seems sensible. We have a
  BLP policy for a reason; we shouldn't have BLPs that have been completely unsourced for this long. If it is indeed the case that we don't have any created before this date - as alluded to above - then that's also a reason to support because there's no longer a need for this clause to be present. Additionally, the fact that the users who wrote these articles might be inactive is no reason to leave unsourced, potentially libelous, material to remain on the encyclopedia. Sam Walton (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support HW's argument seems to make no sense to me, I suspect that I've misunderstood HW's argument, or that HW has misunderstood the proposal here. It doesn't really matter which, but let me attempt to clarify. HW states that the project (no doubt,
  WP:URBLPR), "add[ed] a trivial source or two to every such article". if that's the case, then every such article is ineligible for BLPPROD with or without the grandfather clause, because even trivial, unreliable sources preclude BLPPRODs. In my view, the clause is needless at this point, and I support simplification. --joe decker^talk 20:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per joe decker and others: If they exist as unreferenced entirely, they have to go regardless of how old they were. If there's a source, they are already ineligible for BLPPROD. The grandfather cause, when added, was an expedient at the time to reduce the scope of the problem so we could manage it. Several years on, and things having been settled down, it has outlived its need. --Jayron32 20:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to comment that the grandfather clause was not introduced at the time as an expedient, but as a compromise between two sides, one of which wanted to promptly delete all of the unsourced BLPs and the other of which wanted to try to add sources to all of the unsourced BLPs. The compromise was that the side in favor of sourcing the BLPs would be allowed to try to source all of the ones that existed at that time, but any new ones created would be subject to BLPPROD and could be deleted. Calathan (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As stated Oppose, because it seems if it were removed then all the pages that the editors wanted to remove before the compromise could be swept up and deleted, which would tear up the agreed-upon compromise. Kind of like the Indian treaties in the US, agree to them and then later ignore them. I wasn't in those discussions, so I'm reacting to what it sounds like occurred. Randy Kryn 22:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:BLPs are referenced. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. Randy Kryn 22:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the last time I looked, most of those weren't eligible for BLPPROD, people feel comfortable putting a {{BLP unreferenced}} on, say, American football players with a link their NFL profile, and I personally wish they wouldn't, but those articles aren't BLPPROD eligible in any case. --joe decker^talk 00:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. There are various ways in which we find ancient unreferenced BLPs, there could still be some not yet identified. There may well be some as people remove deadlinks or poor quality sources. I'm not convinced that such articles should be treated as new BLPs, especially as the authors may be long long gone. ϢereSpielChequers 23:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me such cases wouldn't be eligible anyway? As it is, you can't go into even a new entry, delete an unreliable reference, and then BLPPROD it because it now has no references. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: simplify the wording of much-used procedure. PamD 23:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my above comment. This seems to be commonsense at this point. I can understand why the grandfather clause was put in at the time, but seriously, seven years is long enough. If it's a BLP and it has no sources then it's time for it to go. For the record I don't think we should allow any articles on Wikipedia that don't cite at least one reliable source. It undermines our credibility when we call ourselves an encyclopedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support That date is fairly meaningless now. It seems like there are generally around 100 BLPProdded articles in the to be deleted pile at any time. I hope that no one uses this change to tag hundreds or thousands of old, forgotten, pages at once. Should there be a note that any use of this tag for bulk tagging should be discussed first?

In reply to Ad Orientem's comments, our credibility as an encyclopedia is affected by the accuracy of our information, not by the presence of or lack of reliable sources. As a policy, I agree entirely about the need for sources, but unreferenced but correct articles are not harming our credibility at all. It's the incorrect articles, referenced or not, that undermines what we are trying to do. That type thinking was got us to this template in the first place. Some (admins) saw unreferenced articles as inherently evil and wrong, and wanted them all gone. The rest of us saw them as a work in progress. The-Pope (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A hundred articles there has been more or less constant over the years, your comment here suggested I just go, y'know look through them, so I did. I might have missed a few, but tried to go through them all) all but 3 or four were created in 2017, all but one were created since 2016, and the one remaining case was from late 2010, still (barely) after the cutoff date. In the case of the 2010 article and one of the 2016 articles, there had been a ref when the article was first created, and that reference still worked today, so I put the reference back and and declined both BLPPRODs. The 2010 article had been sourced until last October. The date cutoff won't change anything in that pile, and unrefed bios apparently get caught quickly these days. If there is a problem (and I don't know about this), it's more likely to be about whether patrolling admins peek at the history for references that might have been removed. --joe decker^talk 07:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The-Pope When someone goes to an encyclopedia for information, they generally expect one of two things. Either that anything other than obviously non-controversial claims will be cited to reliable sources, or if sources are not cited, then the article will have been subject to rigorous review by one or more editors and fact checked before being published. In the absence of one or a combination of these policies how does anyone coming here know what is entirely truthful, what is is complete BS or what falls somewhere in between? So yes, our failure to insist on citations does damage our credibility as an encyclopedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Real professional encyclopedias don't make the biographies more equal than other types of articles; if it's a big reliability problem that a pre-2010 bio has no sources, it's just as big of a reliability problem that a pre-2010 article on another subject has no sources. If you support this proposal, would you also support having a process whereby we tag a ten-year-old article on a chemistry topic for deletion because it has no sources, and whereby that tag cannot be removed unless sources are provided? If so, I might agree with you or I might disagree with you on WP:DEADLINE grounds, but if not, there's no reason to listen to your support for this proposal. Nyttend (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a question of making article type 1 more important than article type 2. It's a question of recognizing that (articles about) living people are more important than (articles about) things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see that as a remotly valid arguement for leaving unsourced BLPs. It is, however, a great arguement for a sticky PROD for all articles. I can see no good reasons at all for Wikipedia, as a now mature project, allowing any unsourced article since by definition it is either plagerism or original research - both of which we do not allow. Jbh ^Talk 21:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, you overstate things ("New Insect is a brown beetle was discovered in 2015" would be neither plagiarism nor OR, assuming that the information was published somewhere), but I've got no particular objection to a sticky PROD for unsourced articles, especially articles about people, businesses, or products. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Enough time has passed. I can't say I've seen a case yet where when a policy or guideline changes that previous content gets grandfathered in. Instead, that content is updated as appropriate. At this point in time, I don't see any benefit to such a clause.
  talk) 16:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support just because an article is old does not mean it should get a pass on BLP. I assume the grandfather clause was to avoid a rash of BLPPRODS immediately following the creation of that deletion criterion. It has now been nearly seven years and it no longer serves that purpose. Jbh ^Talk 03:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because the backlog has been cleared, so this bit of bureacracy is no longer necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WhatamIdoing. Jclemens (talk) 02:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. About time, we probably should have done this five years ago. Thanks for bringing this to RFC. Risker (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's past time to remove this exemption, and I don't see the presumably small number of affected blps being a valid argument against removing the exemption. Simplify the process and the templates and be done with it. By the way, I'm certain that I did notice a blp that fell under this exemption in the last year (and no I can't link to it). Meters (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – What's the point of it now? It's useless now and the grandfather clause favours some articles. If this guideline (of unreferenced BLPs being PRODed) gets overturned then Wikipedia would get far less safe. I can see why it was useful in the early days though. J947 02:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This made perfect sense at the time, but is not needed anymore.
  talk) 02:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Enough time has passed to clear the backlog. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 20:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support simplifies policy rationally. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – BLP policy has been well refined and stood the test of time; it should be uniformly applied even to legacy articles. A good opportunity for a cleanup, really. — JFG ^talk 19:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support these could be dealt with by a regular PROD now for other reasons to likely the same result, but I also don't see a reason to have the grandfather clause in. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Since the backlog has been near-eliminated at least once since the introduction of BLP PROD, this clause is unnecessary. — Train2104 (t • c) 21:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree with Nyttend that it's time for mass deletion. Every unsourced stub on wiki is preventing a real editor from earning a
  four award. If the subject were important it should have been done right. At least this project recognizes that living people might sue. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Axios! This has been a source of perennial irritation for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as it will simplify things. However mass tagging for deletion would be considered disruptive, and I would expect a search for sources before a BLPPROD tag is added. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support concept, but strongly oppose mass-deletion on short notice: To avoid flooding the system and risking mass-deletions, we need to have a transition period: For the first year, "ancient" BLPs will have a 90-day grace period instead of a 7-day grace period. Remember, editors who created pages years ago may be semi-retired and only log into Wikipedia sporadically. A 90-day grace period makes it much more likely that they will see the notice on their talk page in time to add a reference to the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]