Talk:List of CBBC presenters

Notable people
In the words of another editor:

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)


 * 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.

Dates
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)


 * 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.


 * There isn't a third alternative here. — Trey Maturin™ 12:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)