Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niall 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 Keep (NAC). Although the subject does not meet WP:CRIC, the argument that he meets GNG due to the sources provided are convincing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Niall McDonnell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not played International level cricket or any first-class game.  GreenCricket  (talk)  07:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - he may not satisfy WP:CRIC, as he hasn't played at the highest levels, but I wonder if he satisfied WP:GNG. I'm seeing him as the main subject of a few newspaper articles and on the BBC. I'm probably a weak keep here. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Fails WP:CRIN, but has quite a bit of independent coverage explicitly about him, which is sufficient (barely) to pass WP:GNG. — crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 08:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  09:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  09:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  09:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  09:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  09:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep as per User:Crh23's convincing evidence. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep but not confidently as I still question this but the coverage may be enough to at least somewhat improve this for now. I would certainly consider reviewing for attention again soon though, SwisterTwister   talk  05:45, 23 April 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.