Talk:Peter Gordon (radio presenter)

Non-nontable?
Most refs with links originally on this article were broken and have been removed leaving just two. The remaining refs aren't really proof this person is notable. Consider deletion? 132.185.161.121 (talk) 06:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The fact that newspapers restructure their websites and deep links get broken doesn't change the fact that the referenced articles were published in print as well as online. Google brings back plenty of results mentioning the subject on news websites etc.  You could also try using the Internet Archive to find the missing pages.  I will have a look at fixing this when I have time if nobody else does it in the meantime.Eggybacon (talk) 08:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If you can prove this person is notable, then feel free. Until then, the deletion request still stands. Archived links are not acceptable proof that the person is known enough to warrant an article. Some of this article indicates self promotion. RadioAnorakUK (talk) 08:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any assertion of importance. Toddst1 (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have considerable doubts whether this person is notable, but I think enough is provided here about his longtime career to get past the lower bar of significance that applies to speedy deletion. A proposed deletion notice has already been removed by another editor and may not be replaced (as stated at WP:Proposed deletion) so the next step would be Articles for deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... This article has existed for several years, and has always had plenty of references with links to articles on newspaper websites. Nobody ever suggested that the subject was not notable while those links were in place. Recently somebody posting from an anonymous IP address came along and deleted most of the references, claiming that the links were "broken", and then proposed that the article should be deleted because of the lack of links remaining in the article (contrary to WP:NEXIST) and that the removal of the links itself "makes the person non-notable" (contrary to WP:NTEMP). I stated on the talk page just TWO DAYS AGO I will try to fix the references when I get time. The almost immediate nomination of the page for "speedy deletion" despite that makes no sense. --Eggybacon (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Poorly referenced
There is a lot of content here that is not referenced or not referenced well enough. Also basic biographical details are missing like his date of birth. If these missing references can not be found then that will strengthen the suspicion that he is not notable. I think that those who believe that he is notable would do well to work on improving the referencing. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * These refs can't just be links about panto, which most of them are. If we create articles for everyone who appeared in panto there would be thousands of pointless articles. This is almost certainly either PG himself or a fan who thinks this person is notable enough for an article. The refs and links eggbacon has provided will be removed later today. RadioAnorakUK (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I have just tidied up this article and removed the majority of the links and references provided. One link (Melanie and Peter) was a copy and paste job from Wiki on another page so that alone wasn't a reliable source. Regarding the panto links, I strongly agree with RadioAnorakUK when they say that panto links shouldn't be reliable sources. If everybody who had starred in panto was to have their own wiki article, we would be in trouble. PG is a radio presenter on a small radio station. He's not exactly a well known name is he, apart from in his local area. Other links provided on the article weren't really proof he is notable. One line in a website is't evidence. This page has been marked for deletion again and I strongly agree with this. 132.185.161.121 (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It is possible for a link to be a good reliable source for verification but not to prove notability. I think the panto links are probably that type. If so, they do not need to be removed but they still leave notability very much in question. I wouldn't blame anybody putting this up for AfD. We have given it a fair chance. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've restored the deleted panto links, which as correctly notes appear to be valid for the purposes of verification even if they don't show notability. And I have nominated page the article at articles for deletion so that we can have a more orderly discussion on notability. To me, the sources establish him as a legitimate local celebrity but may not establish Wikipedia notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This war is becoming ridiculous. The discussion on the articles for deletion isn't solving anything. The presenter is NOT a celebrity, apart from in the local area. It would appear Eggybacon is getting very worked up about this and it would appear to anyone he is either Peter Gordon himself or a fan who thinks he is worthy of an article. he is NOT notable enough to warrant an article. The links about panto don't really prove his is notable or worthy of an article because hundreds of thousands of people have been in panto, but not all of them deserve a wiki page. 132.185.161.122 (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Please stop removing references
All of the references on the page have working links. Please stop removing them. As noted in the discussions above and in WP:NEXIST, the presence or absence of references is not what determines whetherthe subject is notable so this should have no effect on the ongoing AfD discussion. Eggybacon (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

As DanielRigal (talk) has said before, the links provided are still putting this article in doubt. As a few people have said, just because the links show he's done panto and done stuff for the community in his local area, doesn't mean he is notable. If you can provide us with another article for a "local" celebrity, then please do. There is a possible solution to this battle and that would be to merge this with Eagle Radio and put a PG section in that article, including the panto links. This will just continue and go on and on and on until something is done. The fact he isn't a notable person out of the radio stations broadcast area doesn't bode well and puts this into the nn category RadioAnorakUK (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion of merging it with Eagle Radio is a great idea. In the meantime I'm just asking that people stop deleting valid references - as noted by more than one user above, a reference does not need to prove notability in order to be valid for verification purposes.  If anybody feels that one of the references I added is genuinely not contributing anything then maybe post a note to that effect rather than just removing it without explanation?  As for your request for another article about a local celebrity, start at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_radio_personalities_by_city and browse.  Many of the articles linked under there are about people who have a national or regional presence, but many are not.  I'd suggest that Darrell Martinie, Pete Sheppard, Jake Hartford, Tami Heide, Carter Alan are some examples of local personalities - but this is by no means a complete list as I didn't go through every article under that category.  You get the idea. Eggybacon (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to be picky, those presenters actually work for quite high profile (ish) stations in America! Much bigger than Eagle Radio. (That was meant tongue in cheek by the way). Anyhow, as you know, this is now being discussed with other editors and hopefully an agreement will be reached soon and the page will be merged with Eagle Radio. RadioAnorakUK (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Merge
Hi this has still not been merged with Eagle Radio. 132.185.161.131 (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)