Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Dillon 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 delete. Uncontested.  Sandstein  07:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Marc Dillon Riddell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not sufficiently notable person. Was educated in journalism, held public-facing jobs with a public broadcaster, then got a communications job with a semi-private utility company. This is a career path that many current government flaks have, and a career path that many current working journalists will have. (e.g. they go from being a visible person on the local news, to being a "Public relations officer" for a particular local thing or agency).

In total the article has only one reference, a dead link, which was a 2007 press release, against the rules for notability in the first place. (promotional)

Article contains a lot of puffery and WP:PEACOCK peacock terms (being the "first", "youngest", "supervising senior" person with an otherwise ordinary job. Apparently he worked as journalists do, and also signed more-junior persons' performance evaluations? In an industry rife with student interns and volunteeer labour, this is not remarkable.

Lead paragraph has this subject's name as "Hrishikesh Raul" and recategorized in Category:Indian Engineers since February 16 2017. Possible vandalism not noticed for 6 months precisely because of the foregoing.

Individual continues to hold a non-notable, non-public-facing job -- Director of Communications for a regional utility company, not being a celebrated person in an unbiased journalism/host/storytelling role. Scope of job, even if notable, is provincial at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.71.150 (talk • contribs) 18:14, June 28, 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Completing nomination on behalf of above IP editor--above text is copied from article talk page. Article had been hijacked by the above-noted Hrishikesh Raul as that account's sole edit.  I have reverted the article to the pre-hijack version except for the retention of the AfD tag--intervening edits had more to do with repairing inconsistencies caused by the vandalism rather than fixing the vandalism itself.  I offer no further opinion on the nomination itself at this time. -- Finngall   talk  18:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per WP:TNT. The notability claims here — winning a Gemini and a Murrow — are not supported by reliable sources, and for that matter this isn't even how the Gemini/CSAs work: Best Newscast goes to the show, not to its producer, which means that claim is running afoul of WP:NOTINHERITED as written. He'd technically have a valid notability claim if he could be shown to pass WP:GNG for his work in journalism, but nothing here grants him any sort of exemption from having to be the subject of reliable source coverage about him. And the fact that the "Hrishikesh Raul" vandalism went completely undetected for almost an entire year says something about how much visibility the guy actually has, to boot. As so often happens with journalists, this whole thing reads an awful lot like something that was probably copy-pasted from an "our staff" bio on the website of his present or former employer without any discernible attempt to actually make it read or source like an encyclopedia article instead of a PR blurb — and that's not the type of article that anybody gets to keep on here regardless of whether they have a valid notability claim or not. Bearcat (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  09:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  07:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:20, 22 July 2017 (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.