Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Gillmore


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. TLA (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

John Gillmore

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

Local radio presenter with no significant references Funky Snack (Talk | Contribs) 21:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, not convinced by the nomination statement. Geschichte (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep, do not agree with nomination statement. J97736 (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Missed getting sorted into deletion sorting lists. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skynxnex (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio,  and England. Skynxnex (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: !votes would be made stronger by engaging with notability guidelines. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 23:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: For the same reasons given by the other respondents who both want this article kept. Rillington (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep It does seem like he's probably notable for being a prolific interviewer and well known presenter. BuySomeApples (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment: Surely who was active in local radio for 38 years would be seen as notable? Plus there is a clear consensus for this article to be kept. Rillington (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: @Eddie891: I respectfully disagree. When the nominator has not made a case for deletion, only thrown in an unexplained adjective, there is nothing to argue against. Geschichte (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * When the nominated says, that there are ‘no significant references’, you could discuss significant references in response. To be clear, I'm not saying that the nomination is 'better', just that the only engagement with actual notability guidelines seemed to be saying he's notable for being active in his job, which isn't particularly relevant. It's not so much about 'arguing against' someone, but about discussing what notability criteria Gillmore does or doesn't meet, imo. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.