Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael McDonnell


 * 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. —  Aitias  // discussion 14:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael McDonnell

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Self-created vanity article. This article is a re-creation of a previously speedied article. It fails notability. This subject has represented a few famous clients, but that's what lawyers do. He claimed to have written some books, but the source provided didn't support this. His claims that his cases have appeared on CourtTV are likewise not notable as this is true for many attorneys, and his claims to be a guest commentator on the show are also not supported and may not indicate notability even if true. Rklawton (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete., agree with all points raised above. --MrShamrock (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If his cases appeared on CourtTV that would make them possibly verifiable and if I understand the role of the guest commentator in that particular show, it would make him sort of a presenter of a notable tv program. I think at least that last one, might make him notable if it's verified. What makes attorneys notable anyway. I'd say high-profile cases (usually involving celebs) are an important part there. - Mgm|(talk) 10:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Celebs are in court all the time - and therefore in the news all the time. Therefore, not just any case should suffice.  Rklawton (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Looks like Spam. I can't find evidence that he was on Court TV, and even if he was, hundreds of lawyers make their appearance there. In all, I am not convinced of the man's notability. Drmies (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I'm a deletionist, so I don't think he meets the WP:BIO bar.  But he's a hell of a lot more notable than Beauty Turner, who's about to be WP:SNOW-kept: he represented Steven Benson (murderer), and has a ton of Google news hits from the 1980s.  THF (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. He has notable clients, but notability is not contagious. TJRC (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2009 (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.