Talk:Keith Irvine

Names

Are the names of the children and grandchildren that important to have in the article? The subject is not notable for having children or grandchildren. I think, in order to avoid policy issues we should remove those names from the article entirely. The only way the change of name can meet policy is to have a source as all information must be verifiable. However, I think, if I was the grandchild and I changed my name because I was trans then seeing the name remain what it was could be detrimental to myself. I just think we can show some compassion while also meeting policy. For reference: this is about these two diffs, [1] and [2]. --ARoseWolf 20:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

They're probably not notable people. I think in general that children's names might be worth keeping (having children is a big part of one's life), but extending beyond that seems like it's including trivial information. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

And, for what it's worth, the grandchild's name does not actually appear in the NY Times piece, so it was failing WP:V to begin with. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I removed the children's names as part of a cleanup before I saw this discussion (seems most of the article was written by his granddaughter). Seeing as the names are actually in the only source, nae objection to readding them CiphriusKane (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPNAME, "The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." I don't see the names of the subject's non notable children are relevant to a complete understanding of the subject here. I admit I rarely do but this is one of the stronger cases where they seem unnecessary. Nil Einne (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)