Talk:William Patterson Dunlop

Death
The topic of his death is not meeting our WP:BLP policy. The FindAGrave link contains text from an earlier version of this article and is not a reliable source. Things like this must be supported by reliable sources or removed from the article. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think WP:COMMONSENSE applies here. Its likely he is dead given that there have been no acting credits or news sources about this person after the year of his death, and family members have left comments about the subject on the find a grave website and its likely it was created by the family. Even this article was created just a few days after his death, likely by a person who knew the subject based on the non-encyclopedic language in that version of the article. As such, I would think we could treat findagrave as a primary source.4meter4 (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * BLP is very clear about such things being cited by a reliable secondary source, see BLPPRIMARY where the use of primary sources is explicitly discouraged. What family and friends have posted is a textbook example of original research. The findagrave site is written by volunteers, much like Wikipedia. You will note the prose of the entry contains text from an earlier version of this very article.


 * This is one of my primary concerns about this article, that there are not enough reliable secondary sources to support the most basic of the biographical information. If we actually used only correctly sourced information we have little more than a list of roles this person performed in. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 02:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand all of that, and again I refer you back to the policy of WP:COMMONSENSE (it too is a policy). When we see family members talking about the death of someone in a public space there really is no valid reason not to believe them and continue to assert that this person is alive.4meter4 (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not policy, it is a explanatory supplement which is explicitly not a policy or guideline. WP:IAR is a policy but I don't see how it applies. In this case the public space they posted to is Wikipedia and "they" is who knows who. It is not about if we believe it or not, it is about if it is supported by reliable secondary sources. The BLP policy is one of the most strictly enforced policies on Wikipedia. I am acting as an editor here so I won't be acting as an admin, but if I was uninvolved I would be enforcing this as an admin. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 02:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This would be good to get some more opinions. Perhaps put in a third request? Regardless, I feel strongly enough about not providing obviously false information (ie asserting someone is alive when we have reasonably good clues they are in fact dead) within the article that I would start an RFC if necessary on this. We have a responsibility to not spread information that we can reasonably attribute to be false by using common sense. In short, lying to people by stating this person is alive when they are more likely to be dead is not ok.4meter4 (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the BLP noticeboard would make more sense. I also agree we should not state he is alive if we don't have evidence for that. The fact is we lack any biographical information from reliable secondary sources, thus the AFD. These are the sorts of problems faced when you try to make a biographical article without reliable secondary sources to support the simplest biographical information. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 02:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Here we go: WP:BLPN. You can make your argument there. I hope that I have represented your position accurately, please correct me if I have not. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 02:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * EDITCONFLICT. True. However our notability policies at WP:NACTOR do not require references with in depth biographical details; merely significant critical reviews of their work within their respective field which we do have. I would further note that if you look at the deletion nominations for the find a grave template (one of which I started at Templates for discussion/Log/2021 August 22) it was overwhelmingly kept for use in circumstances just like this one, so frankly I’m finding contradictory community messaging when it comes to the proper use of findagrave.4meter4 (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for starting the discussion. I am on my way to bed, so my comment will have to wait until sometime tomorrow.4meter4 (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Full disclosure I may have been incorrect about findagrave using Wikipedia text, based on the timestamps it may be that an earlier version of our article used their text. I still don't think it amounts to a reliable secondary source due to being written by a volunteer to the site much as we do here(crowdsourced). The argument in the template for deletion seemed to amount to the idea that it is still useful for external links, I don't see anyone there suggesting it is a reliable secondary source. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 03:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)