Talk:List X site

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

I'm looking for references. [1] has a reference: "N/B – All roles within our client require a level of Security Clearance. The Cabinet Office now mandates that the minimum clearance level required by those applying for employment within the ‘List X’ industry or with a Government Department/Agency is the ‘Baseline Personnel Security (BS) clearance. Our client; a ‘List X’ company, will therefore require from applicants, information and documentation to confirm their identity, employment or educational history, nationality & immigration status and criminal record (unspent convictions only) in order to satisfy the Baseline Standard Security clearance requirement."

Secretlondon 04:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion[edit]

I disagree with the proposed deletion of this article by Porcupine so I have removed the template. The reasons for the deletion were:

"Totally unsourced; has been for a very long time" - well there is one source on the page [2] (see section 5 of the linked page) which verifies the content of the first two sentences.
"A classified subject (I guess) so it would be almost impossible to expand" - I wasn't aware that not being able to expand an article over a certain size was criteria for deletion (please correct me if this is wrong). Surely if it cannot be expanded any further then it should be merged into another article (the best place would be Classified information in the United Kingdom).

johnSLADE (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by section 5 of the linked page? The only proper linked page is "FSC", and that has only four sections.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 07:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was once a section in the deletion policy that listed (non-exhaustively) criteria for deletion, explaining why there were a problem. IIRC, in amongst the reasons was something along the lines of "no potential for expansion". This should probably be merged somewhere, but it's difficult to pick out a specific target article to merge it to. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just amended to revise the description "confidential" to "Secret" because of the Government Security Classification Scheme changes Idrach (talk) 06:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Link[edit]

The ‘list N’ link at the bottom is no longer valid. 92.40.195.105 (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]