Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote: Based on what I saw when going through some of that {{unreferenced}}-containing BLP list, the rate of false positives could be in the range of 90% or so. Having deletion be the default result of such a tag could result in losing a lot of useful stuff. Why not use {{prod}}?

On 4/26/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: ... As Guy said, this would be a variant of proposed deletion, meant specifically for use on articles with unsourced biographical material. PROD has a number of restrictions on it and is only intended for "articles that are uncontroversial deletion candidates that obviously do not belong in the encyclopedia". This would extend to articles on topics that may well belong in the encyclopaedia, but are unsourced. -- Stephen Bain stephen.bain(a)gmail.com

On 26/04/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote: Are we planning to tag these automatically from the list generated earlier? I don't think that's the best way to go about it, due to the false positives, but if you do, some suggestions to make it work more smoothly: * Aim to tag [a fraction] of the unreferenced living bios each week - perhaps one in six? That'll mean the whole set has hit the 14-day limit after two months, a reasonable timeframe for a long cleanup, and avoids completely swamping people in one go. * Ensure the tag populates an "unsourced biographies marked for deletion" category, which will give people wanting to clean it up a good position to start on and an easy way of seeing the response rate. * Widely publicise that this is going to happen, so people can help work on it. * Keep a list of articles tagged and then later detagged, to run a check on later to see how well it worked. I did a little test on this a while back, taking the worst kind of unsourced biographies - the kind that are absolute libel if they transpire to be untrue - and marking them for prodding unless sourced. The usual response was to source and remove the tag, but a couple of times it ended up being removed with no sourcing and brisk comments about "notable topic, take to afd". -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On 4/26/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: I still don't get the idea of minorly notable. I find someone with one lead role in a musical notable. Some people never heard of the person in question respond to debates on such a person with "just one role" comments. Without a set definition this is going to see articles fall prey to personal whims. I prefer harsher deletion criteria for biographies that are primarily about one negative event in a person's life. That's where BLP concerns lie. The obscure but notable people have problems with vandalism to their articles getting noticed, but they don't run any more risk than others. Before we flush those bios down the drain and give up on monitoring them, we should at least try to find an idea to make monitoring better and easier. We can always try deletion later. Mgm

Mark Wagner wrote: You do realize that many of these were likely sourced to the "official" biographies on the official/fan websites, right? -Jeff -- Name: Jeff Raymond E-mail: jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com IM: badlydrawnjeff Quote: "I was always a fan of Lisa Loeb, particularly because you kind of get the impression she sang every song either about or to her cats. They seem to be the driving force in most of her creative process." - Chuck Klosterman

phoebe ayers wrote: No one's saying they *should* be, but you can't call an article unreferenced if it can be sourced to those things. The effort was made, after all. -Jeff -- Name: Jeff Raymond E-mail: jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com WWW: http://www.internationalhouseofbacon.com IM: badlydrawnjeff Quote: "I was always a fan of Lisa Loeb, particularly because you kind of get the impression she sang every song either about or to her cats. They seem to be the driving force in most of her creative process." - Chuck Klosterman

phoebe ayers wrote: For authors we also have dust-jacket bios. They are far from complete, but they are NPOV to the point of blandness.. The result may be a stub, but that at least can put the author in somw kind of historical context and environment. Ec

On 4/26/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote: So far, two out of 50, with a third that feels like a copyvio but which I can't find the source for. -- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]

On 4/27/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: Although sometimes they're a copy of an external site done by the author of that external site, especially if it's the subject themselves. -Matt

Seems to me you're describing why we -should- prune those back, not why we -shouldn't-. If there are very few people involved in the area, and a ton of unsourced and largely unwatched articles, we're just asking for trouble. No one's saying this process would bar recreation if someone can find a source. Seraphimblade On 4/27/07, Phil Sandifer <Snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

On Apr 29, 2007, at 5:10 AM, Todd Allen wrote: Removing most of our coverage of non-American and British countries seems to me to be trouble as it stands. -Phil

On 5/2/07, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell(a)gmail.com> wrote: I would not consider this to be proper processing, but for our lovely "*Some ad hoc process was followed (but a process nonetheless!), plus the subject has never been on the cover of multiple english-language magazines, keep deleted. ~~~~" trolls of DRV, just about anything is good enough. To keep the collateral damage at a minimum, we should at least specify that such an article can be restored by anyone who has made a good faith effort to improve it, or recreated from scratch if the former revisions contained libelous statements (might happen 1 in 500) or copyright-infringing content (probably a lot more common, considering the millions of books that will never be published online for comparison). Charlotte -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Unsourced-biographies-tf3649903.html#a10297162 Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.