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)

Novem Linguae, sorry this reply is so belated but do you mind linking to the entry in question? That’s a novel interpretation so far as I’m aware but maybe I’m missing something. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Innisfree987, . –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, thanks so much. I get it now—the links to bibliographic catalogues referenced statements in the entry. Yeah hrm any reference really means anything, but I’m not sure I’d add authority control to the instructions explicitly because so many biographies have AC wiki text as a matter of course, but it doesn’t pull up anything like that (because the person is, I don’t know, a notable surfer). Just one opinion tho—it’s a good question. Innisfree987 (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, Innisfree987, GB fan; I had the same thing happen! I would appreciate a mention as part of the policy as I would not have considered this as making BLPPROD ineligible. To my understanding, authority control isn't exactly supposed to be a reference, more of a unique identifier. I guess because it is added on Wikidata and not Wikipedia (never purposefully linked) I figured it wouldn't apply. However, if there is consensus, I propose specifying "adding article contains no sources in any form (as references, external links, authority control identifiers, etc.)" Thoughts? Mbdfar (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't just say there are links in the authority control therefore it is ineligible for BLPPROD. I actually click links and verify that something on the page that pulls up verifies some information in the article. BLPPROD is not about references. It is about having a source in any form. An external link to the person's website is a source, a link in the authority control template is a source. If any source verifies any piece of information in the article it is not eligible for BLPPROD. ~ GB fan 16:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I get that. The only issue I have with authority control being used in this manner is that it pulls the sources from Wikidata. If the Wikidata page is changed and the identifiers are modified or removed, there would be no changelog on Wikipedia. Theoretically those links could one day be gone and the Wikipedia history would have no record of what was there previously. I think this is important in a BLP context.

Although you are correct in that the published Wikipedia page shows these sources, the page sourcecode only shows [{authority control}] and nothing else. In this sense, the article contains no sources in any form. Just a thought. Mbdfar (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

You are right the source code does not have any sources but the article does, thae article is what matters to this policy. The best way to handle this is to try to add a reliable source. If that isn't what you want to do or you can't find any reliable sources, there are always other options, WP:CSD, WP:PROD and WP:AFD. If you believe that authority control shouldn't be used in this manner, propose a change to the policy. ~ GB fan 18:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Well as far as I can tell the BLPPROD policy has no explicit mention of authority control, which is why I restarted this discussion. I'm not sure how else to propose a change. I understand that BLPPROD is not the only solution, it's just in my mind there is just a disconnect between sources from Wikipedia and those from Wikidata. I suppose in a way the source code is the article, no? Mbdfar (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The article is what a reader would see, not the source code behind the article. The best place to discuss changes to any policy is Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). ~ GB fan 18:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The policy says any source in any form makes it ineligible. The form of the sources we are talking about here in the source code is {{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)

Thanks for the link. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#BLPPROD_and_Authority_Control if you'd like to participate! Mbdfar (talk) 19:05, 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)

Yes the title is a bit confusing. That's really for historical reasons that led to the WP:BLPPROD procedure being tacked on to the pre-existing WP:PROD procedure although it has different rules. Yes, this is only about unsourced articles. Sourced articles are still subject to our other deletion procedures: deletion with discussion, deletion without discussion and speedy deletion. Maybe someone with a bit more time and motivation than I have can clarify this on the project page. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:19, 10 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. FAdesdae378 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)

If at least one non-trivial statement can be cited to any of the primary sources, then you can't use BLPPROD. Either way, editors could easily disagree on every stage of that test, so you're better off using WP:PROD or WP:AFD for all these cases. Iffy★Chat -- 16:32, 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)

An external link to a stats page that verifies at least one of the statistics in the article is a source backing up information in the article. There may be better ways to cite the facts in the article than a generic link to a stats page, but the bar to prevent BLPPROD from being used is deliberately set at a low level to prevent it from being used merely because the nominator doesn't like how something is sourced. Iffy★Chat -- 10:46, 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)

My experience with trying to use BLPPROD in the past is that at least some admins will decline it for the smallest of things. For example, one citation of any kind, one external link of any kind, or one authority control link of any kind. Which is weird, because this seems to disagree with the BLPPROD template itself, whose wording seems a bit stricter than that. But such is Wikipedia... –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Depends on the circumstances really. Dead sources might be OK if they are still accessible somehow, such as in an internet archive or if the source was also published somewhere. A source which doesn't support any statement in the article doesn't count for the purposes of BLP PROD, but this will be interpreted broadly, e.g. if your article says "X is an American actor..." and your source supports the statement that X is an actor then the article isn't unsourced. Hut 8.5 18:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

A source that is no longer available online is still a valid source. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)