Jump to content

Talk:WTVX

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Adding unreferenced entries of former employees to lists containing BLP material

[edit]

Hello, Please do not add unreferenced or improperly referenced names as entries to the list of former employees in the article. A pre-existing article in Wikipedia for the person may demonstrate notability for inclusion. Not including this type of material in articles abides by current consensus and is strongly discouraged in our policies and guidelines. The rationales are as follows:

  1. WP:NOT tells us, Wikipedia is "not an indiscriminate collection of information." As that section describes, just because something is true, doesn't necessarily mean the info belongs in Wikipedia.
  2. As per WP:V, we cannot include information in Wikipedia that is not verifiable and sourced.
  3. WP:NLIST tells us that lists included within articles (including people's names) are subject to the same need for references as any other information in the article.
  4. Per WP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.

If you look at articles about companies in general, you will not find mention of previous employees, except in those cases where the employee was particularly notable. Even then, the information is not presented just as a list of names, but is incorporated into the text itself (for example, when a company's article talks about the policies a previous CEO had, or when they mention the discovery/invention of a former engineer/researcher). thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 739 past nominations.

Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 17:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • @Sammi Brie: This is my first DYK hook review, so let me know if anything's improper with my assessment. Article was promoted to GA status in the last seven days, and is long enough. Cited hook is interesting, short enough, and verifiable by the source. QPQ has been done. My one issue is that the source used in this DYK hook isn't cited in the article at all from what I can see, and the claim is instead cited to a different source in the article. This needs to be changed per WP:DYKCITE, which requires the claim to be cited in the article body with the same source used in the article. Once this is remedied this should be good to go. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]