Talk:WJAR

Resource needed
In this segment, it says: '' "For most of its history, WJAR has led the market with its top-rated newscasts. This can be attributed to being the oldest television station in Rhode Island and associated early on with two well established radio stations. For February and May 2010 Nielsen Ratings period, this station was number one in all time slots. Its weeknight 6 o'clock show reached a reported 71,000 households which was an advantage of nearly 20,000 over nearest competitor WPRI. For the key audience measure of adult 18-49 and adult 25-54 viewers, WJAR out-delivered the competition in virtually all of its newscasts." ''

However this is information from Neilsen which is typically considered "client exclusive" (not published). Also the numbers and information in this are incorrect. In May 2010, WJAR was not number one in all time slots, WPRI beat WJAR in both demos and HouseHolds at 11 in May 2010. The nearly 71,000 number and 20,000 numbers refer to the 6pm newscast in the February book ONLY. The May book numbers were different. (And again, not public record.)

Again, though, this information is not considered public and unless a reference can be provided, statements like this are strictly hearsay and don't meet the standards of Wikipedia, and should be removed or made much more generic and less sounding like a sales-pitch for WJAR-TV   NECRAT Speak to me 21:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Past Staff
I just cut everyone out of the alumni section that does not have their own Wikipedia page or have a reference to establish their notability. In the case of this article, that left no one left, so I removed the whole section. This is the current consensus procedure, based on discussions at WP:WikiProject Television Stations and at the Village Pump. The rationales are as follows:
 * 1) Most importantly, per WP:NOT, 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) Secondarily, per WP:V, we cannot include information that is not verifiable and sourced. I'm not certain how it would even be possible to source this information.
 * 3) Per WP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.
 * 4) Per WP:NLIST, lists included within articles (including people's names) are subject to the same need for references as any other information in the article.

All of the people with their own pages are notable enough to appear on this list. However, if you look at pages 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 info, 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). Qwyrxian (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)