Talk:KXAN-TV

In response to the request for a third opinion, I've read the issues. I don't see a violation of BLP since the facts are cited to a reliable source, and the arrest is a matter of public record. To say she was drunk would be opinion, but to say that she was arrested is verifiable. The arrest itself is not pertinnet to the article about the station; however, the controversy over news coverage does make it pertinent to the operation of the station. We shoudl be careful not to editorialize -- just the facts. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

• PAX has contacted me saying that the reference is a blog site. I can't agree with that; it appears to be a report/editorial from a recognized medium with oversight. But I'm not seeing the source verifying the statement, "The arrest lead to much debate over how the issue should be reported." While our editor may have first hand knowledge of that, we don't allow primary research and certainly not drawing conclusions from the facts. "Much" is a realtive term which implies widespread discussion, while the debate discussed here was within the staff of one competitive company. I am beginning to think that the informational value of this section is outweighed by the sensationalism. There are precedents where tabloid type issues have been removed from WP based on BLP. I would feel better if we had a citation to a specific article that discussed a widespread controversy etc. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not so much a blog site, but it is labled "blog" within a media site, written by an employee. As I understand it, that indicates it would be a place for personal remarks and opinions rather that researched facts; just my take on it. I'm beginning to see that the arrest can be a valid part of the article, but I still feel it needs to be substantiated by something relevant. I did find this: http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid:571958 (paragraphs 6 - 11), however, it doesn't really go much more into it than what Cantu wrote, and is more editorial/snarkiness than anything. It does contradict what is written in the KXAN-TV entry as it currently stands. Paxsimius (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Please do not add unreferenced names as entries to the list of former employees in articles. Including this type of material in articles does not abide by current consensus and its inclusion is strongly discouraged in our policies and guidelines. The rationales are as follows:

1. WP:NOT tells us, 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. As per WP:V, we cannot include information in Wikipedia that is not verifiable and sourced.
3. WP:Source list tells us that lists included within articles (including people's names) are subject to the same need for references as any other information in the article.
4. Per WP:BLP, we have to be especially careful about including un-sourced info about living persons.

If you look at articles 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 names, 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). If a preexisting article is already in the encyclopedia for the person you want to add to a list, it's generally regarded as sufficient to support their inclusion in list material in another article. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on KXAN-TV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081004004604/http://www.austin360.com:80/tv/content/tv/stories/2008/10//1001kxan.html to http://www.austin360.com/tv/content/tv/stories/2008/10//1001kxan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on KXAN-TV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130829004251/http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf to http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply