Talk:Scott Pendlebury
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
WikiProject class rating edit
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 07:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
his real name is Krenzy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgreaseball2 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Inclusion of family members' names edit
Regarding these edits: [1][2][3] ...
WP:BLPNAME says, with my emphasis, "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects ... The names of ... family members ... may be part of an article, if ... such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject".
I assert that the names of Pendlebury's wife and child do not add to the "reader's complete understanding of the subject", neither is well known in their own right, or notable enough for their own article. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong, so the names should be omitted unless there is some specific reason why they should be included. The fact that the information is publicly available is not sufficient justification for including it. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- WP:BLPNAME also says
When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, ... it is often preferable to omit it
- in this case both names are widely disseminated in the media and on social accounts. - The names are also sourced and appear many times. Alex also is well known, regardless of Scott's actions, due to her being a businesswoman and nutritionist. --SuperJew (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- I generally don't mind having wife/partner names, but am strongly against the kids names (and DOBs) being included. Yes, they get published at the time, but so probably did yours and mine in the family notices section. If someone wants to find out those details, then sure, they probably could with or without Wikipedia. I don't think we should be making it easier, as there is no really good reason to provide those details. If the kid becomes famous, then you add them then, not when they are minors. The-Pope (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Is Alex notable enough for her own article? Being well-known independently of Scott does not imply that her name adds to the reader's understanding of him. (Especially if the mention of her name doesn't actually tell the reader anything else about her.) However, it might be appropriate to mention her by name along with the fact that they part-own/run the Progression Fitness Club together. [4][5][6][7][8] Mitch Ames (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)