Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Simon (presenter)

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. czar 01:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Simon (presenter)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even tough there are lack of citations here, as a presenter and a TV personality he meets WP:ENT requirements. Zeddedm (talk) Zeddedm (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do remember him as fairly prominent for his work on BBC children's programmes in the late 1980s, early 1990s so it I wonder if it may be that most sources that could establish notability would not be online? Dunarc (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with above comment, his past work would easily meet notability if it was on tv today with online sources, but without these his sources will all be magazines and news pieces offline. He easily meets notability, he was ubiquitous on childrens tv and even now is a well known personality, qv. most recent episode of Richard Herring’s RHLSTP ep 387 discussion of his work Mramoeba (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As said, he meets WP:ENT requirements but the article does need more independent references. Rillington (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The previous relist seems to have resulted in this AfD getting completely forgotten about due to a technical glitch. Procedurally relisting so it gets back in the system.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though there are not many sources in the article, there are many others that could be added. Partofthemachine (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.