446:; 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 Knowledge (XXG) (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,
275:
257:
417:, 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.
924:
226:
195:
669:
770:. 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?)
819:
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
799:
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,
604:
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
474:
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 Knowledge (XXG). Theoretically those links could one day be gone
883:
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
16:
A perennial discussion at this page relates to the dichotomy of having two different sourcing tests - any source however poor prevents an article having the tag applied but only a reliable source can justify the removal of a valid tag. Anyone contemplating re-opening this debate is recommended to
515:
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
860:
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
493:
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,
464:
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
63:
773:
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.
154:
182:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
34:
30:
26:
22:
18:
840:
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)
287:
478:
Although you are correct in that the published
Knowledge (XXG) page shows these sources, the page sourcecode only shows and nothing else. In this sense, the article contains no sources in any form. Just a thought.
282:
262:
733:
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
551:. 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.
465:
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.
597:
48:
845:" 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?
286:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of biographies of living persons on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
681:
605:
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
600:) 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
350:
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. –
186:
884:
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.
374:, 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.
98:
632:
procedure although it has different rules. Yes, this is only about unsourced articles. Sourced articles are still subject to our other deletion procedures:
320:
104:
762:
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)
677:
661:
768:
biographies that do not contain at least one source directly supporting the material may also be proposed for deletion under this process
561:
543:
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
531:
695:
610:
908:
894:
876:
854:
829:
809:
789:
751:
727:
700:
653:
618:
573:
555:
538:
530:
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
525:
510:
488:
469:
459:
426:
409:
383:
365:
44:
800:
or any references that backup any information in the article. I'm curious why external links block the application of BLPPROD?
93:
475:
and the
Knowledge (XXG) history would have no record of what was there previously. I think this is important in a BLP context.
237:
209:
84:
711:
546:
194:
149:
205:
915:
243:
135:
871:
784:
404:
360:
338:
506:. If you believe that authority control shouldn't be used in this manner, propose a change to the policy.
904:
850:
723:
649:
422:
379:
74:
690:
614:
332:
928:
861:
BLPPROD template itself, whose wording seems a bit stricter than that. But such is
Knowledge (XXG)... –
719:
114:
89:
644:. Maybe someone with a bit more time and motivation than I have can clarify this on the project page.
684:
until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
625:
805:
274:
256:
862:
775:
435:
414:
395:
371:
351:
210:
516:
Knowledge (XXG) and those from
Wikidata. I suppose in a way the source code is the article, no?
900:
846:
645:
439:
418:
388:
375:
326:
70:
815:
An external link to a stats page that verifies at least one of the statistics in the article
735:
637:
629:
499:
685:
569:
552:
535:
521:
507:
484:
466:
455:
207:
739:
641:
633:
503:
495:
825:
801:
747:
715:
624:
Yes the title is a bit confusing. That's really for historical reasons that led to the
764:
contains no sources supporting any statements made about the person in the biography
887:
565:
517:
480:
451:
443:
821:
743:
710:
Does this apply to BLP's that are only sourced to primary sources, such as
668:
673:
296:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject
Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons
899:
A source that is no longer available online is still a valid source.
562:
Knowledge (XXG):Village_pump_(policy)#BLPPROD_and_Authority_Control
682:
Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 30#BLPprod
598:
Knowledge (XXG):Proposed deletion of biographies of living people
843:
supporting any statements made about the person in the biography
672:
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
299:
Template:WikiProject
Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons
219:
211:
39:
392:
129:
122:
283:
929:
Knowledge (XXG):Teahouse § Aidan White (journalist)
302:
560:Thanks for the link. I've started a discussion at
49:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people
236:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s
628:procedure being tacked on to the pre-existing
8:
321:Category:BLP articles proposed for deletion
293:Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons
263:Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons
251:
253:
767:
763:
532:Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy)
7:
225:
223:
242:It is of interest to the following
47:for discussing improvements to the
17:first read prior threads such as:
14:
280:This page is within the scope of
69:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
922:
680:. This discussion will occur at
667:
273:
255:
224:
193:
64:Click here to start a new topic.
564:if you'd like to participate!
1:
790:06:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
752:16:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
728:16:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
448:authority control identifiers
290:and see a list of open tasks.
61:Put new text under old text.
638:deletion without discussion
945:
920:
909:20:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
895:18:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
877:12:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
855:11:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
654:10:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
366:19:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
112:
15:
701:20:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
619:09:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
268:
250:
99:Be welcoming to newcomers
916:Aidan White (journalist)
662:Redirects for discussion
634:deletion with discussion
574:19:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
556:18:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
539:18:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
526:18:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
511:18:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
489:16:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
470:16:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
460:15:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
830:10:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
810:03:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
676:and has thus listed it
592:Confusing article title
427:14:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
410:12:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
384:07:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
339:Template:ProdwarningBLP
820:something is sourced.
94:avoid personal attacks
742:for all these cases.
333:Template:Prod blp/doc
187:Auto-archiving period
660:"BLPprod" listed at
596:This project page (
450:, etc.)" Thoughts?
238:content assessment
105:dispute resolution
66:
875:
788:
547:authority control
408:
364:
346:Authority control
327:Template:Prod blp
318:
317:
314:
313:
310:
309:
218:
217:
85:Assume good faith
62:
936:
926:
925:
890:
869:
867:
782:
780:
698:
693:
688:
671:
550:
402:
400:
358:
356:
304:
303:
300:
297:
294:
277:
270:
269:
259:
252:
229:
228:
227:
220:
212:
198:
197:
188:
132:
125:
40:
944:
943:
939:
938:
937:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
923:
919:
888:
863:
838:
797:
776:
760:
708:
696:
691:
686:
665:
642:speedy deletion
594:
544:
396:
352:
348:
341:
301:
298:
295:
292:
291:
214:
213:
208:
185:
143:
142:
141:
140:
128:
123:WT:BLP PROD TPL
121:
117:
110:
80:
38:
12:
11:
5:
942:
940:
921:
918:
913:
912:
911:
897:
880:
879:
837:
834:
833:
832:
796:
795:External Links
793:
759:
758:Simplification
756:
755:
754:
707:
704:
678:for discussion
664:
658:
657:
656:
593:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
541:
476:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
347:
344:
319:
316:
315:
312:
311:
308:
307:
305:
288:the discussion
278:
266:
265:
260:
248:
247:
241:
230:
216:
215:
206:
204:
203:
200:
199:
145:
144:
139:
138:
133:
126:
118:
113:
111:
109:
108:
101:
96:
87:
81:
79:
78:
67:
58:
57:
54:
53:
52:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
941:
930:
917:
914:
910:
906:
902:
898:
896:
893:
892:
891:
882:
881:
878:
873:
868:
866:
865:Novem Linguae
859:
858:
857:
856:
852:
848:
844:
835:
831:
827:
823:
818:
814:
813:
812:
811:
807:
803:
794:
792:
791:
786:
781:
779:
778:Novem Linguae
771:
769:
765:
757:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
732:
731:
730:
729:
725:
721:
717:
713:
706:Applicability
705:
703:
702:
699:
694:
689:
683:
679:
675:
670:
663:
659:
655:
651:
647:
643:
639:
635:
631:
627:
623:
622:
621:
620:
616:
612:
608:
603:
599:
591:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
558:
557:
554:
548:
542:
540:
537:
533:
529:
528:
527:
523:
519:
514:
513:
512:
509:
505:
501:
497:
492:
491:
490:
486:
482:
477:
473:
472:
471:
468:
463:
462:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
437:
436:Novem Linguae
434:
428:
424:
420:
416:
415:Novem Linguae
413:
412:
411:
406:
401:
399:
398:Novem Linguae
393:
390:
387:
386:
385:
381:
377:
373:
372:Novem Linguae
370:
369:
368:
367:
362:
357:
355:
354:Novem Linguae
345:
343:
340:
337:
334:
331:
328:
325:
322:
306:
289:
285:
284:
279:
276:
272:
271:
267:
264:
261:
258:
254:
249:
245:
239:
235:
231:
222:
221:
202:
201:
196:
192:
184:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
153:
151:
147:
146:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
120:
119:
116:
106:
102:
100:
97:
95:
91:
88:
86:
83:
82:
76:
72:
71:Learn to edit
68:
65:
60:
59:
56:
55:
50:
46:
42:
41:
36:
32:
28:
24:
20:
901:Phil Bridger
886:
885:
864:
847:AusLondonder
842:
839:
816:
798:
777:
772:
761:
720:BilledMammal
709:
666:
646:Phil Bridger
606:
601:
595:
447:
440:Innisfree987
419:Innisfree987
397:
389:Innisfree987
376:Innisfree987
353:
349:
342:
335:
329:
323:
281:
244:WikiProjects
234:project page
233:
190:
148:
43:This is the
611:77.162.8.57
609:sourced. --
626:WP:BLPPROD
130:WT:BLPPROD
927:Moved to
802:Mr.weedle
136:WT:STICKY
115:Shortcuts
107:if needed
90:Be polite
45:talk page
836:Question
716:this one
712:this one
553:~ GB fan
536:~ GB fan
508:~ GB fan
467:~ GB fan
150:Archives
75:get help
889:Hut 8.5
736:WP:PROD
692:Adesdae
674:BLPprod
630:WP:PROD
500:WP:PROD
191:90 days
740:WP:AFD
566:Mbdfar
518:Mbdfar
504:WP:AFD
496:WP:CSD
481:Mbdfar
452:Mbdfar
444:GB fan
240:scale.
766:, 2)
232:This
155:Index
103:Seek
51:page.
905:talk
872:talk
851:talk
826:Chat
822:Iffy
806:talk
785:talk
748:Chat
744:Iffy
724:talk
714:and
650:talk
640:and
615:talk
570:talk
522:talk
502:and
485:talk
456:talk
423:talk
405:talk
380:talk
361:talk
92:and
828:--
750:--
738:or
697:378
607:are
534:.
394:. –
907:)
853:)
817:is
808:)
726:)
718:?
652:)
636:,
617:)
602:is
572:)
549:}}
545:{{
524:)
498:,
487:)
458:)
442:,
438:,
425:)
391:,
382:)
189::
181:,
177:,
173:,
169:,
165:,
161:,
157:,
73:;
33:,
29:,
25:,
21:,
903:(
874:)
870:(
849:(
824:★
804:(
787:)
783:(
774:–
746:★
722:(
687:F
648:(
613:(
568:(
520:(
483:(
454:(
421:(
407:)
403:(
378:(
363:)
359:(
336:·
330:·
324:·
246::
183:7
179:6
175:5
171:4
167:3
163:2
159:1
152::
77:.
37:,
35:5
31:4
27:3
23:2
19:1
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
