459:
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
427:@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
440:
435:. 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
481:
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
293:
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 -
182:
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
458:
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
302:- 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 -
635:
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.
151:
274:
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". --
496:
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
338:- 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.
482:
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. --
145:
294:
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,
332:
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 ,
436:
112:
585:
220:
611:
685:- 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
85:
80:
89:
443:. 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? --
72:
665:
166:
133:
17:
258:
127:
653:
Riley is an important figure in journalism and the media. As Chief
Political correspondent he is well known. Others like
123:
76:
712:
698:
673:
645:
626:
600:
575:
558:
537:
510:
491:
472:
452:
413:
399:
347:
327:
311:
284:
266:
235:
210:
192:
54:
49:
173:
729:
669:
206:
36:
360:
728:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
571:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
356:
68:
60:
248:, which says that a person who has "received a well-known and significant award or honor" is notable. The
139:
533:
463:
and joint winners of this award. Perhaps he has written some books, my google search didn't reveal any?
375:
708:
694:
506:
468:
368:
343:
307:
202:
188:
318:
Appears to be from 1999 and was a joint award. Possibly just notable enough, but it takes digging.
567:
448:
372:
280:
159:
387:
379:
262:
231:
298:- which award - his name is not to be found anywhere? if anyone can specify - please do - also
661:
have pages. This is just a lame attempt to delete this page because of his confrontation with
622:
596:
395:
323:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
566:
The
Walkleys are a major Australian award, and in winning one of these I feel he is notable.
554:
529:
525:
487:
409:
353:
704:
690:
658:
502:
464:
364:
339:
303:
184:
252:
are hardly minor - the article says they are the
Australian equivalent of the Pulitzers.
444:
383:
295:
276:
249:
641:
546:
253:
245:
227:
654:
618:
592:
528:
and confer inherent notability, although I agree the awards are a bit of a wank. --
391:
319:
106:
662:
550:
483:
405:
201:--Non-notable journalist, fails to achieve coverage beyond merely doing his job.
335:
48:. Lots of coverage on this fellow. The article could use expansion, though.
637:
432:
549:
criteria, but I think that the
Walkley Award gets him across the line.
183:
pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO - Off2riorob (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
355:
on page 169 shows Riley with a joint
Walkley "Sydney Morning Herald (
722:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
439:. Lastly, Mark Riley is right now clearly at the centre of an
524:
The Walkley Award is the kind of major award that would meet
501:
Walkley..award, but at least he a cited one of those now.
431:
covering Federal politics, not the local police beat at
686:
102:
98:
94:
158:
703:The vandal made a personal attack which I deleted.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
732:). No further edits should be made to this page.
586:list of Television-related deletion discussions
221:list of Australia-related deletion discussions
404:Thanks Collect, I've added that reference. --
172:
8:
612:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
334:Riley, who is chief political reporter for
300:the article has presently a single citation
606:
580:
215:
610:: This debate has been included in the
584:: This debate has been included in the
219:: This debate has been included in the
477:This is an AfD, and the point of that
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
713:10:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
699:09:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
687:contribution to this BLP here
674:09:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
646:22:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
627:13:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
601:13:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
576:11:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
559:07:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
538:07:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
511:02:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
492:22:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
473:14:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
453:06:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
414:22:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
400:07:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
348:02:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
328:02:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
312:01:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
285:00:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
267:00:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
236:00:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
55:06:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
437:evidence of their notability
211:22:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
193:22:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
749:
545:Not very notable per the
725:Please do not modify it.
441:event squarely about him
32:Please do not modify it.
69:Mark Riley (journalist)
61:Mark Riley (journalist)
390:." Seems RS to me.
657:and even the SBS's
44:The result was
629:
615:
603:
589:
376:, Louise Williams
238:
224:
740:
727:
616:
590:
225:
177:
176:
162:
110:
92:
52:
34:
748:
747:
743:
742:
741:
739:
738:
737:
736:
730:deletion review
723:
666:144.136.101.108
659:Karen Middleton
369:Lindsay Murdoch
365:Hamish McDonald
203:Jonathanwallace
119:
83:
67:
64:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
746:
744:
735:
734:
718:
717:
716:
715:
701:
677:
676:
648:
630:
604:
578:
568:Punkrocker1991
561:
540:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
384:Ross Coulthart
371:, Mark Riley,
315:
314:
296:Walkley Awards
288:
287:
269:
250:Walkley Awards
239:
213:
180:
179:
116:
63:
58:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
745:
733:
731:
726:
720:
719:
714:
710:
706:
702:
700:
696:
692:
688:
684:
681:
680:
679:
678:
675:
671:
667:
664:
660:
656:
652:
649:
647:
643:
639:
634:
631:
628:
624:
620:
613:
609:
605:
602:
598:
594:
587:
583:
579:
577:
573:
569:
565:
562:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
541:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
520:
519:
512:
508:
504:
500:
495:
494:
493:
489:
485:
480:
476:
475:
474:
470:
466:
462:
457:
456:
455:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
415:
411:
407:
403:
402:
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
374:
373:Zannuba Wahid
370:
366:
362:
361:David Jenkins
358:
354:
352:
351:
350:
349:
345:
341:
337:
331:
330:
329:
325:
321:
317:
316:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
292:
291:
290:
289:
286:
282:
278:
273:
270:
268:
264:
260:
257:
256:
251:
247:
243:
240:
237:
233:
229:
222:
218:
214:
212:
208:
204:
200:
197:
196:
195:
194:
190:
186:
175:
171:
168:
165:
161:
157:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
135:
132:
129:
125:
122:
121:Find sources:
117:
114:
108:
104:
100:
96:
91:
87:
82:
78:
74:
70:
66:
65:
62:
59:
57:
56:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
724:
721:
682:
655:Laurie Oakes
650:
632:
607:
581:
563:
542:
521:
498:
478:
460:
428:
426:
333:
299:
271:
254:
241:
216:
198:
181:
169:
163:
155:
148:
142:
136:
130:
120:
45:
43:
31:
28:
663:Tony Abbott
530:Mkativerata
388:Nick Farrow
380:Jason South
146:free images
705:Off2riorob
691:Off2riorob
503:Off2riorob
465:Off2riorob
340:Off2riorob
336:Seven News
304:Off2riorob
185:Off2riorob
619:• Gene93k
593:• Gene93k
526:WP:ANYBIO
445:Mattinbgn
357:Mark Dodd
277:Mattinbgn
433:Booligal
382:), with
113:View log
461:winners
429:network
392:Collect
320:Collect
228:Grahame
152:WP refs
140:scholar
86:protect
81:history
633:Delete
551:Nick-D
547:WP:BIO
484:Canley
406:Canley
259:Anselm
246:WP:BIO
199:Delete
124:Google
90:delete
499:minor
167:JSTOR
128:books
107:views
99:watch
95:links
51:m.o.p
16:<
709:talk
695:talk
683:note
670:talk
651:Keep
642:talk
623:talk
608:Note
597:talk
582:Note
572:talk
564:Keep
555:talk
543:Keep
534:talk
522:Keep
507:talk
488:talk
469:talk
449:talk
410:talk
396:talk
386:and
378:and
344:talk
324:talk
308:talk
281:talk
272:Keep
263:talk
244:per
242:Keep
232:talk
217:Note
207:talk
189:talk
160:FENS
134:news
103:logs
77:talk
73:edit
46:keep
638:MLA
617:--
591:--
174:TWL
111:– (
711:)
697:)
689:-
672:)
644:)
625:)
614:.
599:)
588:.
574:)
557:)
536:)
509:)
490:)
479:is
471:)
451:)
412:)
398:)
367:,
363:,
359:,
346:)
326:)
310:)
283:)
265:)
255:St
234:)
223:.
209:)
191:)
154:)
105:|
101:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
79:|
75:|
707:(
693:(
668:(
640:(
621:(
595:(
570:(
553:(
532:(
505:(
486:(
467:(
447:(
408:(
394:(
342:(
322:(
306:(
279:(
261:(
230:(
226:—
205:(
187:(
178:)
170:·
164:·
156:·
149:·
143:·
137:·
131:·
126:(
118:(
115:)
109:)
71:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.