Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Riley (journalist)


 * 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. Lots of coverage on this fellow. The article could use expansion, though. m.o.p 06:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Mark Riley (journalist)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Prod was removed without improvement - Journalist that in the course of his work is mentioned here and there in sources but that asserts no depth of notability - article as it asserts no notable awards - there is a minor award but looking at it it is of little note - or a level of note that would pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO - Off2riorob (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete--Non-notable journalist, fails to achieve coverage beyond merely doing his job.Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Grahame (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BIO, which says that a person who has "received a well-known and significant award or honor" is notable. The Walkley Awards are hardly minor - the article says they are the Australian equivalent of the Pulitzers. StAnselm (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable even before this latest event as a leading national political reporter for a national network and most certainly notable after. I am a little tickled by the description of the Walkley Awards as "minor". -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As for you being tickled Matt - this person appears to clearly be not very wiki notable at all - he seems to be a simple journalist - I realise he is from your country but please try to be constructive in your position - add something to the article if you want to keep it - improve it in real time - it has a single citation - This award, it does not appear to be a major award at all, I am so far unable to verify which award he actually received - there are many every year, Walkley Awards - which award - his name is not to be found anywhere? if anyone can specify - please do - also the article has presently a single citation - I have looked around and not found anything that is not a mirror of wikipedia for this award -  If users assert notability please add some local citations to assist in improving the article and explaining why the subject is notable. thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Appears to be from 1999 and was a joint award. Possibly just notable enough, but it takes digging. Collect (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking - if you find it, let me have a reliable citation that supports it - I was also looking around for refeences to this persons notability, the article says, ''Riley, who is chief political reporter for Seven News - but this subject doesn't get a single mention in that article at all - perhaps if we can find something reliable to support his position there then a redirect there is the correct option. Off2riorob (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * on page 169 shows Riley with a joint Walkley "Sydney Morning Herald (Mark Dodd, David Jenkins, Hamish McDonald, Lindsay Murdoch, Mark Riley, Zannuba Wahid, Louise Williams and Jason South), with Ross Coulthart and Nick Farrow." Seems RS to me. Collect (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Collect, I've added that reference. --Canley (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

@Off2riorob - Your description tickled me because of my personal views about the pomposity of the whole concept behind the Walkley Awards, which take themselves very, very seriously. It was not meant as a reflection on you. Responding to your other points: Firstly, I don't have to improve anything in order to state my opinion. Secondly, the subject is not "just a journalist" - he is a journalist for a national television network covering Federal politics, not the local police beat at Booligal. I know Australia is very small and a bit of a backwater compared to the US and UK but this is a position of national significance in my country. Thirdly, "I never heard of it" is not a reason to dismiss the Walkley Awards. They may be a bit of a mutual backslapping exercise but they are the major journalism award program in this country. I suggest you didn't look very hard for evidence of their notability. Lastly, Mark Riley is right now clearly at the centre of an event squarely about him. You can try and argue BLP1E (except you haven't) but given his role I would say it would be an uphill climb. Is this all "constructive" enough? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really - instead of you aussies just going - yea notable - walkely award - improve the article because if you guys simply vote to keep it because he is from your country and it remains like it is now, with a single citation, and I am in the uk and I have searched and found nothing worthy of adding about him - just cos he reports on the telly doesn't mean he has a notable life, its his job ,thats all. I will keep at it until its gone anyways. Its not automatic this award for notability - and although there are a few of the gold awards that are a bit notable the one he was awarded jointly is a minor one as I can see - why are there no independent reports of this fantastic achievement? At least User Collect presented a citation and thanks for that Collect. I also note the proliferation of redlinks associated with the other winners and joint winners of this award. Perhaps he has written some books, my google search didn't reveal any? Off2riorob (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an AfD, and the point of that is to "just go yeah notable", to present and discuss references and to add them to the article if appropriate. Would you change your mind if more reliable references were added to the article? (I've just added the Walkley Award one Collect found). I'm just concerned because comments like "I will keep at it until its gone anyways" seem to indicate "us Aussies" are wasting our time adding refs or insisting the Walkleys are notable if you're determined to delete the article no matter what. --Canley (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want to delete it if he is a noteworthy person, I was looking for some improvement and I appreciate your beneficial contributions. Personally he still looks like someone with a job on telly with a minor Walkley..award, but at least he a cited one of those now. Off2riorob (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The Walkley Award is the kind of major award that would meet WP:ANYBIO and confer inherent notability, although I agree the awards are a bit of a wank. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Not very notable per the WP:BIO criteria, but I think that the Walkley Award gets him across the line. Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The Walkleys are a major Australian award, and in winning one of these I feel he is notable. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete journalists are never as notable as they always think they are. The Walkley equivalent in most other industries would never be considered notable and journalists shouldn't be considered inherently more notable than other professions.  MLA (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Riley is an important figure in journalism and the media. As Chief Political correspondent he is well known. Others like Laurie Oakes and even the SBS's Karen Middleton have pages. This is just a lame attempt to delete this page because of his confrontation with Tony Abbott144.136.101.108 (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * note - this user has made three edits, two to vandalize the BLP and this one in support of keeping it - likely so he can vandalize it some more - see his great wiki contribution to this BLP here - Off2riorob (talk) 09:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The vandal made a personal attack which I deleted. Off2riorob (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2011 (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.