User talk:Dean.cole

CHEZ-FM

Neither the show nor Rogers is allowed to dictate what goes in the article and what doesn't — in fact, nobody with a direct conflict of interest gets to edit the article at all, except to correct purely factual errors. If somebody were to incorrectly edit the article to say that the station was in Kingston instead of Ottawa, then you or another Rogers employee would be allowed to correct that if you happened to be the first person to catch it — but nobody associated with Rogers has the right to dictate any other content in the article.

To include content about individual shows on a radio station, what we require is that it complies with WP:NMEDIA — namely, if a significant description of the show's content or impact could be written and referenced to actual media coverage about it, then it would be permissible, but radio station articles are not allowed to contain content that simply lists the station's programming without proper sources for it, and any content that the article does contain has to be written in an encyclopedic tone and not a marketing tone. For one thing, nobody outside the station's existing listening audience even knows who Doc, Woody, Randall or Eric are in the first place — but we're an international encyclopedia, so some actual substance about the show's content or impact, supported by proper sourcing, is how we give the rest of the world outside of the station's existing listening audience a reason to care. And secondly, when staff members leave radio stations for new jobs, our articles have a really bad habit of not getting updated so that they stay accurate — again, because unless the Ottawa Citizen publishes an actual article about the staff member's departure, nobody outside the station's existing audience either knows or cares.

And thanks for the tipoff about the other articles as well — unsourced content about former hosts on CISS has already been removed from that article, and CHFI is a bit more complicated because some of it is sourced and some of it isn't, so it'll take a lot more work to untangle what's allowed to be there and what isn't. But what dictates whether local radio hosts are allowed to be named in the station's article or not is not their own desire to be there, but the presence of proper sourcing to support their inclusion.

So the bottom line is, our rules decide whether it goes into the article or not, not Doc and Woody's rules. What they want isn't our concern at all — I sympathize if it's a hassle for you in responding to them about it, but what goes or doesn't go into the article is Wikipedia's decision to make according to Wikipedia's rules. It's not a thing Doc and Woody have a right to decide for themselves, or a thing anybody employed by Rogers has any right to place on your list of job duties as a "requirement" — Rogers has no right to control the content of the article, because the article doesn't belong to them. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)