Deletion of Diarmuid O'Neill

Comment: Anyone who's turned up and said "Delete - nn" or "Delete per nom" (which is the same thing as the nom was "nn"), needs to show how it fails to meet the |notability guidelines. Just saying "delete - nn" or "delete per nom" is worthless if you fail to explain why
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Meets , a bounty of references (that could be cleaned up by the way,) Wikipedia isn't censored, etc
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: I think this could be alright if rewritten in NPOV. Seems to be |notable; he is the subject of multiple independent reliable sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: I often find myself arguing that  is not an appropriate keep criteria, but here, I find myself arguing that  is not a reason to delete. I don't think anyone would seriously dispute, for example, that :Amadou Diallo is notable and suitable for an article. There is plenty of nontrivial secondary source coverage here, and any NPOV problems should be addressed with the good old 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:SOFIXIT)

Comment: notability under  is obvious and indisputable. &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Article contains links to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1996/09/25/nira125.html this article and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1996/09/25/nira25.html this one which clearly satisfy the central criterion in . Amnesty Int'l campaign further confirms notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: if kept, the article should be rewritten with attention to . The subject is only notable for the circumstances of his death, and those are very poorly sourced at the moment
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)