Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

After carefully reviewing the extant discussion in this Request for Comment, I conclude the following:

There is broad consensus that the measures adopted to address new unreferenced biographies of living people – specifically WP:BLPPROD – are on the whole, working well (Views by LiberalFascist, J04n, WereSpielChequers, Collect, The-Pope). Assertions to the contrary – that the process is "worthless and harmful" (View by DGG) or merely "a very small start" (View by Scott MacDonald) did not gain comparable levels of support.
There is considerable support for the idea that editors tagging articles for deletion (i.e. WP:BLPPROD) notify the creator(s) of the article (View by WereSpielChequers, point 4, View by DGG, point 2), despite discrepancies between the related proposals.
The proposal to alter the WP:BLPPROD to focus on reliability rather than bare existence of sources (View by J04n, View by WereSpielChequers, point 2) met with significant support and productive discussion, as well as some resistance (View by Hobit). This proposal might benefit from further deliberation and refinement at the talkpage of the policy.
The issue of the subject notability guidelines (SNGs) and their relation to the core notability guideline and verification policy was again raised, with significant criticism of the use of SNGs (View by Gigs) and some support (View by DGG, point 4). The discussion on this point was inadequate for any consensus to form, particularly given the relatively broad and intensive discussion of this issue at other fora many times in the past.
There is no consensus for either relaxing (View by WereSpielChequers, point 1) or strengthening (View by DGG, point 1) WP:BEFORE requirements in the area of biographies of living persons. There was particular resistance (View by Balloonman) to the possibility of establishing requirements to this end.
Other issues raised, such as the general inadequacy of notability guidelines in the area of biographies of living persons (View by Scott MacDonald), the need to focus on potentially damaging allegations in biographical articles of living persons (View by Collect) and the need for Foundation-level involvement in this area (View by The-Pope) received insufficient discussion to reliably indicate community norms and thus failed to yield consensus on any concrete proposal.

In summary, to reply to the questions posed by The Wordsmith about WP:BLPPROD in opening this request for comment:

Is it working? Yes, within its constraints.
Could it be improved? Perhaps, but no consensus on how.
Do we need to retire it? No.
Do we need to adopt something stricter? No, in spite of the sentiments of a vocal minority.

I will be posting recommendations for further discussion based on the outcome of this RfC at relevant affected pages (WT:STICKY, WT:N, WT:BLP), but given the lack of solid consensus for anything other than the status quo will not make any direct alterations to process or policy. Depending on future developments or shifts in community sentiment, another review of our treatment of BLPs (i.e. BLPRFC4 three months down the line) might well be worthwhile, but I do not think scheduling such a review now would be wise, as much of this discussion involved already well-trodden ground with little breakthrough. Skomorokh 21:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The previous RFCs held at this location may be found at WP:BLPRFC1 and WP:BLPRFC2.

At the end of the Request for Comment Phase II, it was decided that there would be a three-month review of the measures adopted since then. It has been roughly three months, so i'm beginning this review. The process that has come out of this series of RFCs is WP:BLPPROD. Is it working? Could it be improved? Do we need to retire it? Do we need to adopt something stricter? Please leave statements summarising your views of what has transpired since then, and then we'll move on to what we can do to make things better if necessary. The Wordsmith^Communicate 01:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]