Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Donnelly (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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Donnelly (journalist)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neither his budding career as a reporter (he graduated college not too long ago, it would appear) or his Gaelic Football career seem to have garnered sufficient independent RS coverage to meet our notability requirements, from what I can find. Tagged for notability and as an orphan since 2011. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 07:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:ATHLETE. a 2 year journalism career following completion of a degree is hardly noteworthy unless there is significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete amateur sportsman, young country reporter, not yet notable. The-Pope (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. 04:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete I support the delete camp's argument that the individual does not seem to meet WP:ANYBIO, either as an athlete or a journalist. In regards to the relisting, anyone may WP:RELIST if they feel consensus has not been adequately established, and not restricted to admins even in close calls. A relisting is different than a close. Mkdw ^talk 05:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relist just proves a uniamous delete, I see little value in the Relist. LibStar (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing enough to confer notability either as a journalist or as a sports-person, nor enough for WP:ANYBIO. Stalwart111 06:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some day he might be Notable, but he is not right now. No awards or trophies cluttering up his room. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG, ANYBIO and any other suitable SNG. Cavarrone (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This can now be SNOW-closed, if anyone wishes to do so. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why was this relisted exactly when it was already unanimous? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, Andrew. The answer is scattered. But you can find the discussion: a) on the page of the original re-lister (at the time when there were two !votes and the nom, here, b) at the AN/I filed concerning the fact that there was a re-list, here , which was followed by c) the original re-lister's decistion to revert his relisting, and d) in the edit summary of the second re-lister, here.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.