Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane McNally

=[[Shane McNally]]=

:{{la|Shane McNally}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Shane McNally}})

Does not appear to meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Rugby league - he has played 2 games, none of which meet those criteria (see [http://www.qrl.com.au/default.aspx?s=history-players#M QRL player profile] and [http://www.rugbyleagueproject.org/matches/Custom/MjctLS0tLS0tLTU2MjctLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ== Rugby League Project Matches played]. Although his name appears a lot on GNews, the coverage is basically confirming his position as coach, but does not appear to indicate meeting notability criteria, or the significant coverage as required by the general notability guidelines. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

:Keep His playing in career in pre-NRL era Queensland is borderline - google news does not cover Australia well in the 80/90s - and the rules on "fully pro league" are difficult to apply to the "everyone is semi-pro" eras of the past. But, his coaching of a English Super League team surely is enough to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. The-Pope (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

:Keep Rugby league club competition in "Pre-NRL era Queensland" produced national team captains so is thus clearly notable. I guess the wording of those guidelines needs improving to avoid further nominations like this. Plus Super League coach. Easy pass.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

:Keep I believe that as the coach of Wakefield Trinity Wildcats in the Super League from August 2002 until June 2005, being mentioned in 148 articles at bbc.co.uk, he is notable. Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment I must admit that I didn't check the BBC's website - and didn't see them on the websearch I did. I notice, however, that the articles I checked out only verify some of the facts in the article - it would be nice if some of you would perhaps look at some of the BBC coverage and cite facts as necessary, and then remove any unsourced facts from the article. I am back at work soon, and as I have 14+ hour days (including travelling) when working, I do not tend to do much Wikipedia work when I'm at work (I need to eat, spend some time with the kids, and ... what was that other thing?... oh yeah, sleep!). In a few days' time, when I am off work again, I am happy to continue doing referencing - and when I have saved this comment, I will in fact close this AfD, as the consensus is clear! Thanks for your input - this is one of those where I made a mistake - and as I say, if you could start referencing the article, then I will continue in a few days if necessary. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:49, 4 June 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.