On 14/09/2007, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/09/2007, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
No, it doesn't. WP:V and WP:RS gives us the mandate to remove unverified, unsourced material from articles. WP:BLP just says "You really ought to do this."
WilyD
Ah, right, my bad.
~Mark Ryan
WP:V and WP:RS (or WP:ATT if y'all ever switch) may set the basis, but WP:BLP changes the beat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CITE#Unsourced_material
'If an article has no references, and you are unable to find them yourself, you can tag the article with the template {{Unreferenced}}, so long as the article is not nonsensical or a biography of a living person, in which case request admin assistance. If a particular claim in an article lacks citation and is doubtful, consider placing {{fact}} after the sentence or removing it. Consider the following in deciding which action to take: '1. If it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article or to Wikipedia, use the {{fact}} tag, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time. '2. If it is doubtful and harmful, you should remove it from the article; you may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless you regard it as very harmful or absurd, in which case it should not be posted to a talk page either. Use your common sense. 'All unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed from articles and talk pages immediately. It should not be tagged. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Libel.'
In short, if it isn't on an important subject such as a living person, you have time to figure it out, and you might bend the definition of a reliable source. If it is on a living person, it must be fixed ASAP using the strictest definition of a reliable source.
Also, V and RS apply only to mainspace, except that they form a basis for BLP, which applies to all namespaces.