Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of CBBC presenters


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. While there are acknowledged issues with this article, there is a clear consensus to Keep this article and improvements have been made to the article during its nomination period. I realize that it might make a reappearance at a future AFD, but please do not renominate it tomorrow or next week or next month or we will just be closing it with the same result. Liz Read! Talk! 18:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

List of CBBC presenters

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This list of living people has been unsourced since it was created. When sources are provided, they're to Instagram and other primary and unreliable sources. Lists like these have been swept out of their 'parent' articles, albeit with people complaining that they can can source the list by asking the presenters on Twitter(!), but nobody has ever been able to provide an actual source for the lists. Instead this list is just a weird mix of what people believe to be true, what people would like to be true and whatever vandals would like to insert whenever they feel like.

WP:LISTPEOPLE is clear: Because the subject of many lists is broad, a person is typically included in a list of people only if both of the following requirements are met:


 * The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement.
 * The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.

This list contains people who have no article and no claim to notability beyond perhaps (there's no way of knowing, the list is unsourced and apparently unsourceable) having briefly presented at some point; and it fails the second point hard. — Trey Maturin™ 19:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television,  and United Kingdom.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral comment This can be sourced, but it must be done so carefully as the top G-hits are Fandom wiki junk, WP:DAILYMAIL gossip garbage and Buzzfeed listicles. This BBC source is likely acceptable, along with this Guardian profile.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 20:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The BBC source is not comprehensive and does not give dates; the Guardian source is about the lovely George Webster and doesn't mention any other presenters. I'd be happy if this list were cut down to Phillip Schofield, Andi Peters, Zoe Ball, Andy Crane, Michael Underwood and George Webster, without dates, since they can be sourced... but then that seems to be too small to qualify for a Wikipedia list anyway. And perhaps the entire list can be sourced, but sadly after a couple of years of requesting that this was done, the best anyone could offer in the parent articles was quoting someone with an unverified Twitter account agreeing that they had, at some point, been a presenter on children's TV. Thin stuff. — Trey Maturin™ 21:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we don't want to source to Twitter harassment of a former presenter (which wouldn't be accepted anyways) or WP:YOUTUBE, but I also don't want what I mentioned above before the BBC source to be acceptable sources, either. It was more giving a starting point than a 'final absolute source' to help anyone along on this AfD than anything and hopefully we can get things filled in, but as with all kidvid articles we're going to get more junk sources than not.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep As said this can easily be better sourced and which is the main issue with the article but given that CBBC presenters were generally included, especially in the earlier years, there is no need to delete this useful addition to the main subject. And I shall now include some additional references to further remove the need for this article's deletion.Rillington (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Chucking in a couple of (primary) sources and then walking away is all well and good, but 90% of the living people on this list remain unsourced, and a good half of them don’t qualify for a Wikipedia list anyway. — Trey Maturin™ 02:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't walked away as I have now added further references, and I appreciated that you noted that the references I added the other day were from primary sources. Rillington (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting. Although there seems to be a consensus to Keep this article, the nominator brings up some valid concerns with this article. While it has been improved over the course of the past week, I want to allow for more discussion on its future. I realize this decision might be questioned but know that a uninvolved admin or editor can close this discussion at any time. Thank you. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The list was already tagged appropriately. A couple of Instagram references fall under WP:SOFIXIT. I just did. gidonb (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You removed one poor reference but didn’t replace it with anything, thus leaving an almost entirely unreferenced list of living people with even fewer sources than it started with, so, um, well done, I guess? — Trey Maturin™ 02:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct. I cleaned up references that you used to talk the list down. Now you wish to use the cleanup ALSO against the list? You seem to imply in the intro and now again that Wikipedia articles have expiration dates. They don't! Also, please stop arguing under LITERALLY everyone's opinion! You have had your say in the intro, now please give others some SPACE to consider your stated concern, what is in the article, references, policies, guidelines, and more. Don't worry -- something will roll out of this AfD! gidonb (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * AfD is a discussion, not a vote. We are having a discussion here. Your suggestion that I should shut up because I don’t agree with you is inappropriate in the extreme. — Trey Maturin™ 02:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It sure is a discussion and no single user should be all over this discussion. See WP:BLUDGEON for more details. My comment is constructive -- so you will do better next time! gidonb (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Trey is right to be concerned; you removed a reference, only to blank it. It's expected that a better-quality source should be added rather than just be removed with no replacement, and they're right to question why. This is hardly bludgeoning at all, and I do ask the same question; do you have a better source?  Nate  • ( chatter ) 19:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Nate, I removed an Instagram reference that Trey correctly complained about. We do not reference our articles from social media! gidonb (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It does seem strange that you have taken the decision to relist this article liable for deletion despite the acknowledged consensus for its retention. The main reason for deleting it - lack on independent references - has been addressed by myself and this has now seen the addition of 11 independent references and since you have relisted it for deletion I've added even more. This has to be more than enough to ensure its retention. Rillington (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey Liz, while the concerns are valid, as you say, they do fall under WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and WP:SOFIXIT. Also, some were fixed, others are covered by the warning template that correctly no one removed. Typically we only discuss such concerns while there are valid concerns about the validity of article. While we're at it and since an AfD is a discussion. Otherwise such discussions belong to the article's talk page. gidonb (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Please don’t bludgeon this discussion, gidonb, by replying to everybody. — Trey Maturin™ 18:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't. I responded to just one person and to whoever reacted under my own opinion. How does the same add up on your end? gidonb (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 28 references and an already acknowledged consensus to keep. I genuinely have no idea why this article is still being considered for deletion. Rillington (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Every name needs referencing. Many still don’t. Every date needs referencing. None have them. Every assertion about what role people had (holiday relief, that they moved from/to a different channel etc) needs referencing. None do. I get that people are doing the bare minimum to try to save this article, but that’s what it is: the absolute bare minimum. It needs more, if only because if it survives this AfD every unsourced assertion will have to be removed and the article will find itself back here for not meeting WP:LISTPEOPLE. — Trey Maturin™ 12:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I fully accept that you want this to be deleted and no matter what effort is put in to address your concern about lack of references, you, alone, remain set in this view. Wouldn't it be more constructive to try to improve the article and maybe to locate further references? The consensus is to keep this article and this discussion should have been closed some time ago. Rillington (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You have misunderstand my motives. I don't want, per se, this article to be deleted. I do want it to be compliant with Wikipedia's most basic of all policies: verifiability. That can happen by all of its assertions being given reliable sources – again, the minimum requirement of an article in an encyclopaedia – or it can happen by the article no longer existing. There isn't a third option and the people saying the article should be kept are all giving reasons for keeping it that are outside of our basic policies.
 * If this article is important enough to be kept, it's important enough for people to add sources for every assertion made about the living people it talks about. If it's not important enough to to add those sources to, then why should it be kept? That's the essence of the debate here. "I like it" is not a reason to keep a mostly unreferenced list of living people. — Trey Maturin™ 12:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nearly all the names on the list have their own Wikipedia article, which is enough to justify having a list in order to help readers find them, even without sourcing. Look at it from the reader's perspective: They want to know more about that CBBC presenter, "you know, the one who appeared around the time of Zoe Ball, and had blonde hair"; they can't remember the name, so they want a list of names they can scan through, to see if any look familiar, and to find the articles. Why on earth would we deprive them of this useful list? Elemimele (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Because this isn’t someone’s blog, this is an encyclopaedia, one that requires — not requests, not would-quite-like — that things in it are sourced. And if those things are about living people we doubly, triply, quadruply require them to be sourced because living people are actual living people and we shouldn’t be printing stuff about actual living breathing human beings with feelings and careers and lives without having proof for those things.
 * Put it this way: as the article currently stands, I could put Pol Pot as a CBBC presenter and, without sources, it would be up to other editors to prove that he wasn’t. Whilst his name was on the list, the people who were working with him would be standing accused of working with a mass murderer. No good could come of this
 * This is an exaggeration, but there are other more plausible names I could add, like Rolf Harris and Jimmy Savile. Or random celebrities like, um, Ian H Watkins and Rylan. Or random randoms, like Jackie Fairborough and Paul Atkins (my next door neighbours. Or are they? We don’t know: my statement is unsourced).
 * Of what use to random readers just wanting information would it be if the list contained unsourced names like Rolf Harris, Ian H Watkins, Michael Absalom or Jackie Fairborough? That reader would be worse off than before they read the article. — Trey Maturin™ 22:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you're misunderstanding referencing of lists. It is possible to have a list of living people in Wikipedia that has no referencing whatsover because it's not an article, it's a navigational aid. It is a way for people to find referenced articles. You can't put Pol Pot in the list of CBBC presenters because anyone clicking on the link will merely end up at the article on Pol Pot which will explain what he is, and it won't support his presence in this list. Lists are supported by the articles to which they navigate. Some lists grow beyond this, and become information-containing articles, and these need references. Think of it this way: you don't need referencing in the lead of an article because the lead is supported by the rest of the article (which is referenced), and lists are similar. I couldn't object to the removal of all presenters who don't have their own articles, if you're worried about that aspect. But I don't think it would be very helpful. Elemimele (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And here we come to the crux: this isn't just a list of people. It's a list of people that gives other information like the dates they're supposed to have presented (unreferenced) and also what roles they had (some of which are followed by question marks because even the people adding them don't know the facts). Of those that are linked, several connect to articles that don't mention the person's alleged role at CBBC/CBeebies, or do but that isn't referenced either.
 * If this debate is closed as keep, the list will need to drop the dates and the roles and the people without articles and the people whose articles don't mention their roles and the people whose articles do but aren't referenced there either.
 * The resulting list will be of no functional use to anybody and won't meet WP:LISTPEOPLE, so it'll end up back here.
 * The alternative is to source this list of living people with reliable sources – the most basic tenet of Wikipedia. But people don't want to do that. They won't do that. They chuck in a few links to BBC Genome that barely count, but don't, won't, or can't, reference the entries on it and act like this is really asking too much. It really isn't; and our entire encyclopaedia is built upon this notion. — Trey Maturin™ 17:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.