This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In the words of another editor:
“
Lists of people must meet the criteria listed at WP:LISTPEOPLE. This isn't the first station article this has been discussed on, and articles have been protected to prevent these additions, or the editors in question blocked when they persistently continue to reinsert inappropriate material. If a name is included in the article in this way, it has to show that it's relevant to the subject by meeting WP:LISTPEOPLE. Just because a station lists its employees doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to as well, and other station articles needing similar cleanup doesn't mean this one doesn't need to be cleaned up, because whenever it's actually discussed on a station article, the end result is the same; the names that don't meet WP:LISTPEOPLE are removed. Wikipedia is also not a directory. See here, here, and here for previous discussions about this.
”
— Another Wikipedia user
An I.P. keeps adding a few names to the bottom of the list, who in fact are not notable per above. I keep reverting, but the IP obviously doesn't know what it says or could care less. If it keeps happening, I will request a protection. Corkythehornetfan(Talk)03:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Following the recent debate about deleting this page, Trey Maturin has removed non-notable presenters. Whilst this isn't something I would necessarily have done, this is probably the correct decision to ensure that accuracy can be maintained as this is more important than an unverifiable list which may or may not be fully accurate.
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Trey also removed the dates indicating when the listed people was a presenter. I think this information should be included. What do others think? Rillington (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm not opposed to the presenters having dates next to them, but... Wikipedia's rules kick in again: we need reliable sources for these dates, especially since we're dealing with living people.
At the moment, the sources we're using, where there are any, are by and large just links to the person having been on air on one random day in the past. It may seem like we can just find the earliest entry for them and the latest and extrapolate a period where they worked there. Alas, Wikipedia's rules kick in again: this is called synthesis of published material and original research. We don't allow either.
We need a good source that says "Norris McBorris was a CBBC presenter from 1981 to 1994" or the like that we can link to. We can't use what we remember, what Norris McBorris says on LinkedIn, synthesis or what we would like to be true. We have to have an actual secondary source for each set of dates.
Now, the argument has been made by others that this article isn't important enough to warrant sticking by the first pillar of Wikipedia's founding and fundamental principles. Personally, I'd say that argument is the opposite of the one people should be making, since it is, in effect, an argument to delete this article because it's not important enough to go in an encyclopaedia.
I don't believe that's true, so therefore this article needs to meet the first pillar, which can be done by providing secondary sources confirming dates or leaving the dates off.
