Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages...
Click to read more »because Dog Ear Publishing is a vanity press (so I think using it would be an SPSBLP violation). I don't see WP:ANYBIO as being met, either. The Queen Elizabeth...
Click to read more »repeatedly adding info cited to personal blog in violation of WP:SELFPUB and WP:SPSBLP. Content in question has been under discussion for a day+ now, but IP has...
Click to read more »these articles is running pretty hard against WP:V WP:RS and WP:BLP (WP:SPSBLP in particular, which says "never" not "unless its flattering and promotional")...
Click to read more »In general, when we say "Self-published sourced" and its application to SPSBLP, we're talking about a singular individual or a very small group that publishes...
Click to read more »these articles is running pretty hard against WP:V WP:RS and WP:BLP (WP:SPSBLP in particular, which says "never" not "unless its flattering and promotional")...
Click to read more »because Dog Ear Publishing is a vanity press (so I think using it would be an SPSBLP violation). I don't see WP:ANYBIO as being met, either. The Queen Elizabeth...
Click to read more »expert opinions in articles. -- Avi (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC) WP:SPSBLP: these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals...
Click to read more »including it in a BLP is explicitly disallowed by policy, specifically WP:SPSBLP: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines...
Click to read more »opinion is that QW is a special case and should be treated as an exception to SPSBLP until the latter might be rewritten to allow it. Otherwise Wikipedia is...
Click to read more ȤFreeRangeFrogcroak 20:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC) That bit absolutely fails WP:SPSBLP so was correct to remove. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)...
Click to read more »Actually, I would argue that we should very rarely be using self-stated SPSBLP inclusion in the absence of any third-party or secondary coverage to give...
Click to read more »conspiracy theorist (though I will point out the Forbes source is unusable per SPSBLP as a contributor piece, and a few others do not explicitly "Wakefield is...
Click to read more »This can be an issue of "unduly self-serving" though this is not quite an SPSBLP issue (no doubt those are her words as quoted by the NYTimes). We want to...
Click to read more »use that where relevant and as limited by policy (i.e. not in BLPs per WP:SPSBLP). Roggenwolf's argument that we might use it for articles about controversial...
Click to read more »including it in a BLP is explicitly disallowed by policy, specifically WP:SPSBLP: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines...
Click to read more »above, but I would say that things we'd disallow if it were a BLP (such as SPSBLP) should be more carefully considered when dealing with a gov't or a corp...
Click to read more »