Talk:Clarke Gayford

Query

Should Clarke Gayford not have his own page? Please share your thoughts. Paramountair (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Paramountair: He's long met notability criteria. All that's needed is that somebody starts a page. Schwede66 20:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Schwede66:Thank you. How can I separate the too pages (Jacinda Ardern and Clarke Gayford? I would love to start a page for him. :) --Paramountair (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Paramountair, I suggest you prepare a draft in your userspace. Click this link and get going. I've watchlisted that link and will look over your shoulder if you wish. When it's done, I'll move it across to article space for you. Schwede66 04:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

can someone add his DJ history please. (Homegrown 2015 Bill for a start) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.40.73 (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Tweet

Currently we have a para starting "In April 2018, Gayford responded critically...". The guts of this, is a single tweet:

"And welcome back to NZ - lol. Here's some other bottom feeding fish who I'd never met which feature as breaking news this weds 8pm on Prime TV, FISH OF THE DAY. - in the stunning COROMANDEL,".

The Cone article itself might be worth inclusion, (although it says itself that its "antipathy is mean-spirited", and it's mainly notable because it was promoted as "Breaking News"), but this simple cryptic snark reply surely doesn't meet our standards. Thoughts? - Snori (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The paragraph is properly sourced (the reference is a NewsHub article about a tweet; not the tweet itself). I do agree, though, that this is a rather innocuous thing to note in what is an already-sparse "Personal life" section. Unless there are other examples of Gayford responding negatively to press coverage (in which case the paragraph should be expanded), I wouldn't object to deleting it. Ross Finlayson (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

At the very least, the word "critically" should be deleted. It's an editor's WP:OR assessment of the nature of Gayford's response. I think the entire paragraph adds nothing of any value to the article and should be deleted. So there was a tit for tat? Will it have any significance in the WP:10YT test? Forgotten already, but memorialized here out of all proportion to its significance. Akld guy (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

To me, this is worthy of inclusion because somebody went to the trouble of writing a newspaper article about it, and because it's a good example of Gayford character (witty, boisterous). No trouble to c/e this for the word "critically" or for anything else. And if the majority view is that it should go then that is fine, too. Schwede66 02:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, if read as an example of his "witty, boisterous" character I can see the logic, but our text and the ref'd article didn't really come over like that to me. If we had another example(s) of this character trait then I'd be happy to see this incident as one of a number of refs, but on it's own I still don't think it should be included. - Snori (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Date of birth is incorrect

Clarke was born in 1976, not 1977 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.96.219.251 (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• ClrkeGayford in Auckland conference-flag new Ja.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)