Talk:Nigel Burton

Kids names
I agree with WP:BLPNAME, but it should not apply in this instance. The names are on his official bio at his work place, i.e. means not third party and not media. There is a reason WP:BLPNAME repeatedly talks about third party, as in the subject may not have wanted that information out in the world, but here when you have a primary source that would have been provided by the subject, they had a chance to keep the information private, yet chose not to, which also applies to the under 18 bit. And if you look at the examples, they are all talking about negative items, not just a bare mention of the names. But, at the very least, please restore a son and a daughter, and always "Where names are redacted, editors are encouraged to explain why on the article's talk page". Which is here. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The BLPNAME policy applies to this article for for three reasons:


 * There is no significant value added to the article by including the names
 * They are not significantly notable enough for their own Wikipedia articles
 * They are minors
 * Regardless of where Nigel Burton has chosen to list the names of his children/family members, there is no reason that they should be included in this article, and as such should be removed per BLP policy. That being said, I don't believe there is an issue with regard to adding the daughter/son information. Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 18:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We could argue about whether a website bio is or isn't technically "the media," but since it's so tangential to the article, we should err on the side of caution. The names should definitely be left out, and I would even leave out the gender, following the general guideline that minor children "deserve greater protection from intrusions upon their privacy." --Esprqii (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)