Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Riddell


 * 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 no consensus. Compelling arguments for and against both before and after a relisting leads me to the decision there is no clear consensus here. KaisaL (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Kelly Riddell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no information about from any indepedent source. Ref 2 & 3 seem to be her own web page.  DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. She is a longtime reporter and columnist for a major newspaper. I also added a lot of secondary sources.Marquis de Faux (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources you added seem to be items she wrote. That does not show notability.  DGG ( talk )
 * I added additional sources from other publications that cited her and the stories she broke, including Fox News, RT, Daily Beast, Daily Mail, Newsmax, New York Daily News, etc.. Please check again and tell me if that shows notability. Thanks Marquis de Faux (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

03:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as there's by far nothing convincing, only a localized journalist and nothing to suggest the needed solidity. SwisterTwister   talk  02:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * SwisterTwister  talk  Not just a localized reporter but a national reporter who broke notable stories. I added some of the stories she broke, which have been featured in many national media outlets.  SwisterTwister   talk   please check the new stuff and see if that adds notability. Marquis de Faux (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Longtime reporter & columnist for major newspaper whose stories are carried on national news networks.  A quick search shows she has been a guest on both O'Reilly & Hannity - both major U.S. political TV forums.  This is enough to establish notability in my opinion. MB (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a national figure.  Given the lack of biographical material, there is still room here to merge this topic appropriately, but with all of the new sources, after six days the delete views do not refute the new sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no need to "refute" the sources. The sources don't establish her notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - the article is supported by examples of her work and articles that do not even mention her name. A couple of article mention her, but nothing in-depth.   red dogsix (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * RT, Fox News, Daily Beast, Media Matters all cited her name, and the others cited her specific report. In depth biographical information is not needed to establish notability, and those citations are enough to show her work is notable. Marquis de Faux (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Doing your job (writing news articles) doesn't make you notable. There is a lack of significant coverage about her. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is tons of coverage, in addition, she won the Society of Professional Journalists’ Robert D. G. Lewis Watchdog Journalism Award which is a notable journalism award. If you look at Category:American journalists there are multitudes of people with less stuff than her. Marquis de Faux (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've nominated other journalists for deletion in the past. Your suggestion may inspire me to weed out that pool again. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -As of 6/23/2016 notablity has been established. The entry was originally nominated for deletion prior to much information being added, including her work, which has been cited by numerous national and international sources and her receiving the Society of Professional Journalists’ Robert D. G. Lewis Watchdog Journalism Award, which is a very notable journalism award and the highest award in its Washington chapter. Given that delete supporter SwisterTwister's addition was added prior to much notable information being added, and the other delete posts have not posted counterarguments to responses and that this entry has been two weeks old, I believe a rough consensus has been reached and this discussion ought to be closed. Marquis de Faux (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - Not sure a local chapter award establishes notability nor 2 sentences about the individual in that article establishes notability. red dogsix (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you just declare "notability has been established?" Niteshift36 (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. red dogsix (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant Marquis. "As of 6/23/2016 notablity has been established."


 * Weak keep--I think this has just enough. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Here are links demonstrating national prominence: 2016 CPAC speaker, appearance on CSPAN , live comentary on Fox news , O'Reilly Factor , Hannity . These are instances of her being interviewed or giving commentary on national news shows.  This goes far beyond a typical reporter whose work is merely published (just doing one's job). Clearly meets WP:JOURNALIST MB (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - How does this meet Wikipedia criteria for WP:N or any of its sub-guidance? I do not see adherence to any of the items in WP:JOURNALIST, this includes item 1.   red dog<i style="color:#000;">six</i> (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:JOURNALIST4C says work "has won significant critical attention". I don't know what more critical attention a journalist can receive than being invited to discuss their work on multiple national programs. MB (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Lots of people get invited to yak on TV; it's hardly a mark of quality to get on Fox or Hannity or even on stage at CPAC. "Critical attention" means critical attention, which reliable secondary sources should report on; being asked to speak somewhere (with the transcript to prove it) is not "being given critical attention". Drmies (talk) 02:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete fails GNG LavaBaron (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep seems notable enough to me - there are mentions in all sorts of secondary sources. Aoziwe (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Some comments:
 * N does not care about quality of the subject, just the quality of the source. Aoziwe (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Relativity of notability: WP:NCRICKET allows only one appearance at international or top domestic level and that appearance can be a complete fail, and does not require any secondary source coverage for them at all (only the match they played in) ! WP:NJOURNALIST is 100 times stronger.  Riddell has had multiple "appearances" at top domestic level so would romp it in for N if she was a cricketer.  There needs to be some serious comparative reviews and changes to N guidelines across subject areas.  Aoziwe (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There has apparently been some significant work on the article since the initial listing for deletion, 400% bigger, so earlier respondents should review their opinion. Aoziwe (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2016 (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.