Okay, I'm slightly inconvenienced, or relieved, due to being currently blocked, so I'll make this suggestion here. Pass it on if you dare be accused of "proxying for a blocked editor." Caveat emptor. See WP:PWD. This is a general solution for unreferenced articles, not just BLP, but it would be extremely useful, and even helpful in this case, and shouldn't raise deletionist hackles as much as keeping the articles, and it shouldn't offend the inclusionists nearly as much as deletions, which damage the process by which new and referenced articles evolve. Indeed, this could stimulate the process. Don't delete the articles. PWD suggests not deleting *any* articles that aren't positively identified as being illegal, but never mind that for now, just think about BLP, where policy does suggest removing such articles from the visible encyclopedia. Replace the article text with a notice that an article on the topic existed but was blanked because of policy on Biographies of Living Persons and it was unreferenced. Place a cat tag on the article that allows quick finding of all such articles. Additional information in the new article text would vary with the exact details of what was done and why. Anyone who wants to see the old article can retrieve it from history, particularly if a link is provided. If it is desired to salt these articles, to require a request to an admin to unprotect, then the blanked version is protected. If registered editors are to be allowed to delete, it's semiprotected. Both protections require admin attention to undo, of course. This edit will trigger watchlists, if there is anyone watching the article. It will allow the article to be easily restored whenever someone pays sufficient attention to reference it. If there is semi-salting, it would allow any registered editor to undo it, which would decrease burden on administrators. More sophisticated, if protection is used: a note is place on a Talk page for the article, and the addition of a certain category to the Talk page can bring the situation to the attention of a BLP wikiproject or a bot. How about "Articles referenced for review to unsalt." Make it quick, make it easy. All depends on how much effort the project wants to require to undo it. Any illegal text should not just be blanked, it should be removed from history through revision deletion, so that's a separate process (and there should be a flag or category for that). What's described here is to be done by bot, and is legally equivalent for most purposes. Illegal text exists in many BLPs, and is routinely simply taken out, not revision-deleted. As an RCPer, I certainly didn't request revision deletion for all the crap I saw! In fact, for none. So it remains available in history routinely.