Talk:Toby Huff

Proposed deletion

The only source is a book review, which does not deal with the substantive biographical matters in the article. "All biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article". andy (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't that source directly support the assertion that "Huff stimulated a controversy?" This article desperately needs more sources, but I don't think blpprod is applicable. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

There are no quoted sources for any of the basic information about his life. This needs "direct support" per WP:BLP. andy (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, I fully agree that the article needs more sources. There are BLP problems here, no doubt. But - I don't think blpprod specifically can be used here. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure myself but the guidelines seem to indicate that it's to do with supporting the substantive claims in the article. For example if you had a BLP article about a celebrity giving details of their personal life, but the only reference was to a cover image from some glossy magazine, all that would show is simply that they existed not that they had a lurid private life. IMHO the reference in this article doesn't relate in any meaningful way to the substance of the article. andy (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the way to deal with unsourced lurid personal details would be to immediately delete them. I hear what you're saying, but again, blpprod is a special process for when a blp article has no references - from wp:BLPPROD: "To be canceled, this process requires the presence of at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person" etc. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You win! andy (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)