Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micheal Fitzgerald

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. Ironholds (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Micheal Fitzgerald[edit]

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

The article claims that Micheal Fitzgerald is an actor who is also a race car driver. The article lists no reliable sources that Fitzgerald is an actor. IMDB is in the External Links, but IMDB is not considered a reliable source WP:RS/IMDB. His race car driving notability is not established by an article about Sony working with his employer, Cork Racing, that only mentions Fitzgerald's name in passing. Another reference to his employer's website should not be used as the sole source of notability. A third reference mentions a Michael Fitzgerald being named best dressed man at an event; however, Michael is spelled differently ("ae" vs "ea") and does not otherwise qualify that this is the Michael Fitzgerald who starred in movie "XYZ" and is a race car driver with "ABC". This article is potentially building Frankenstein WP:DBTF, as no reference even mention the actor and driver are the same person. There is a press release that I found on the Internet that supports this article, but the press release is from Fitzgerald's employer, Cork Racing, and is hosted online by a PR firm. This article is lacking reliable sources that are not affiliated with his employer and that establish this is all the same Micheal (or Michael) Fitzgerald. Bagumba (talk) 08:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has been updated with further reference to the subject's recent acting profile. The subject has been named in the Irish Examiner article (a 100 year + national publication), dated 2006 as a driver for Cork Racing. Much effort has been completed in validating the information sources and notability. The subject should not be labelled as dubious because Micheal is reported as Michael. This is a common translation error. The mispronunciation/mispelling of the subject's native name in a report should not be negative. Hunterscarlett (talk) 08:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Hunterscarlett (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 06:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Bagumba (talk • contribs) is the nominator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Hunterscarlett (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Irish Examiner source is the sole independent reliable source in the article, but this three-sentence source's subject is Sony and Cork Racing, and Fitzgerald is only mentioned in passing. The dubious tag placed throughout the article is not so much for the spelling, but the fact that it is not verifiable that the actor and the race car driver are the same person per WP:DBTF. —Bagumba (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Arguably fails verifiability but definitely fails notability not matter how one chooses to look at it. For general notability, I cannot find any coverage of significance to match this Micheal Fitzgerald regardless of it being pelled "ea" or "ae". As an actor, his imdb resume shows only one acting credit being "Agent #1" in a single episode of a TV series. As a race car driver, it is asserted he races Formula Ford which is a lower level series, and for which I can find no coverage to indicate that he is a notable driver. Perhaps somebody with some motorsport expertise can weigh in on whether he passes any of the motorsport critieria set out in WP:NSPORT. -- Whpq (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject passes verifiability as proved by The Irish Examiner article. The subject passes notability because the subject has actually achieved more acting and writing credits than actually listed. The subject will gain further notability and reference with the 2011 releases. Hunterscarlett (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With regards his racing experience Formula Ford is not a professional racing series, nor is Cork Racing an employer. In fact if you look up the webpage michealfitzgerald.com it automatically redirects to corkracing.ie indicating it is possibly a webpage set up by the subject himself. As for the acting experience he is one of probably hundreds, if not thousands, of actors who have had minor parts in the series' 20+ year run. I can see no current notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darlough (talk • contribs) 21:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darlough has very few edits outside this topic

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further references added Hunterscarlett (talk) 09:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)— Hunterscarlett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment The new sources are not from third parties; they are all affiliated with Fitzgerald. WP:DBTF is mostly resolved. The best dressed man article is still dubious if it is him based on the claim that they look alike, but that doesnt establish his notability anyways. —Bagumba (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing any true notability, minor acting parts, no coverage of significance. Off2riorob (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article shows as much, if not more notability and interest, as other motorsport drivers and Formula Ford drivers such as Wayne Boyd, Conor Daly, Tim Mullen. Many newspapers in Ireland which would have further references only publish in hard copy. I think there is a big danger that this is turning into an American Idol vote instead of an objective collation of growing achievements. Hisensed (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)— Hisensed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - How does this article show notability? His career as an actor/writer is not substantial. And there is barely any mention of his motorsport activity. What exactly is he notable for? -- Whpq (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I echo the question "How does this article show notability?" Just stating it without explaining why is not enough. Comparison with other articles is of little relevance (see WP:OTHERSTUFF) even if it is true that those other articles do not indicate more notability than this one, which is open to debate. I don't know what you mean by "an American Idol vote". JamesBWatson (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is within the scope of WP:MOTOR, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Hisensed (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a very strong argument. Please explain this article's notability on its own merits. —Bagumba (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a valid article on a person who has achieved in Motorsport (in Formula Ford) and is achieveing in an acting career, This article is within the scope of WP:MOTOR, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Motorsport on Wikipedia. Exisitng articles exist with respect to other Formula Ford drivers. More Examples: Callum MacLeod, Josh Hill, Tim Blanchard, Tom Blomqvist, Jeremy Metcalfe in additon to Wayne Boyd, Conor Daly, Tim Mullen. This article demonstrates the individual is achieving in two distinctive careers in 3 different countries on 2 different continents. Hisensed (talk) 11:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ It needs to be questioned whether the negative comments are from users without an interest in motorsports and this might cloud an objective commentary.Hisensed (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"keep" struck through as user has already registered a keep"
Comment The idea that only users with an interest in the topic should comment is foreign to the nature of Wikipedia. I am also not at all sure why being an outsider might "cloud an objective commentary": if anything I can see a reason why the opposite might apply. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ With respect, one of the main point of contention raised is that that Micheal is 2 different persons. If that is not now an issue as, then that particular point needs to be addressed and corrected while further efforts are made to address the citations that have been deemed dubious or further 3rd party sources needed. The issues need to be seperated to enable each to be solved on its own merits—Hunterscarlett([User talk:Hunterscarlett|talk]]) 01:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"keep" struck through as user has already registered a keep"

It is still a problem. There is still no one source that says they are the same person. What is needed is an independent reliable third-party that says "Micheal Fitzgerald, the actor, is also a race car driver." See examples in WP:DBTF. —Bagumba (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should order some fingerprints if the current photo match ups are not substantial ;-). hunters 01:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Under Construction Further 3rd party refences being sourced to satisfy the queries. Article tagged with "Underconstruction" tag. hunters 11:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

*KeepThis man is doing Irish racing drivers proud and his uncredited racing films are superb. He is proving there is life beyond racing using the skills gained in racing. A true life coach in the making. Keep her lit boyo! Irelands loss is Australia's gain. JdRacingPaddy (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JdRacingPadd has few edits outside this topic

Unfortunately none of that relates at all to Wikipedia's notability criteria. In fact it amounts to no more than a long way of saying "keep because I like it". JamesBWatson (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe issues are:

1] Can the article facts be verified. {YES, as per the references).

2) Is there evidence of notability? (MAYBE, The subject is only notable in Ireland?)

3] Does subject have less references or is less notable than a number of other subject articles (NO, The subject has shown more distinct references and equal notablility as other aticles, why is that every fact in this artilce that has a reference has been further challenged for more reference when the following examples of similar subject material on Wikiepdia have multiple facts with little or no references at all?) Examples: Tom Kimber-Smith;Valle Mäkelä;Wil Traval;Peter Scarf;Mark Furze;Andrew Bibby;Myles Pollard. The main issue here is double standards, one harsh application of standards to this article while other articles in the same sphere are accepted. JdRacingPaddy (talk) 00:55, 01 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As previously commented above, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an acceptable argument. You are invited to be bold and improve those articles, or nominate for deletion articles that you have found do not meet standards. —Bagumba (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. None of the "keeps" from SPAs (one of which looks to me suspiciously like a sockpuppet) really addresses the notability issue. I have looked at all of the references cited, and they all suffer form one or other of the following limitations: (1) does not mention Micheal Fitzgerald, (2) makes only brief passing mention of Micheal Fitzgerald, (3) not a reliable and independent source. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not bite the newcomers "Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet". If a disproportionate number of newcomers show up on one side of a vote, you should make them feel welcome while explaining that their votes may be disregarded. No name-calling is necessary. Similarly, think hard before calling a newcomer a single-purpose account." Trying to make a contribution with motorsport related facts from Ireland. Do not appreciate the "biting". Very deterred from further contributions. New users must spend more time under these "biting" attacks than time to research to add to articles or or add new articles.JdRacingPaddy (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I did not say "one of which looks to me suspiciously like a sockpuppet" on the basis of the account being new: I said it on the basis of a careful study of the account's editing history. If there is evidence of sockpuppetry then to hide the fact because the possible sock puppet account is a new one would not be constructive. Secondly, if someone sets up an account and uses it only to edit in one area, then why is it offensive to call it a single purpose account? Why would anyone new to Wikipedia coming across that expression even think that it is offensive? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: JamesBWatson (talk • contribs) is the creator of a secondary wikipedia account.JamesAWatson. - hunters 23:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunterscarlett (talk • contribs) [reply]

WP:NOTAGAIN"If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination. If an article was kept because it is potentially encyclopedic and can be improved or expanded, one should allow time for editors to improve it. Therefore, it is appropriate for editors to oppose a re-nomination that does not give enough time to improve the article." My thoughts exactly - this article needs time for the sources to come in. They are out there. hunters 00:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunterscarlett (talk • contribs)

The nomination looks to me as though it is intended seriously. On what grounds do you categorise it as "frivolous"?
There has never been an earlier deletion discussion on this article. As far as I can see your remarks about an earlier nomination for deletion must refer to a PROD, which you removed a little over two months ago. The author of an article removing a PROD from their own article does not constitute "a consensus to keep it in the past". Or have I missed something? I have searched thoroughly, and cannot find anything else relevant. As for "this article needs time for the sources to come in", aren't two months enough? If not then the sources must be rather hard to find. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Time

The article was created on [03:55 31 January 2011].
Before a cup of coffee could be made to celebrate my first contribution to Wikiepedia. The article was nominated for speedy deletion [03:57 31 January 2011]. The kettle hadn't even had a chance to boil.
Inching along with the new markup language reference sources were added [05:34 31 January 2011]. It was a fair contribution for a first effort. I thought it was a good achievment to leave it at that and go to soccer training.
Before I had a full nights sleep on it. The article was proposed for deletion via WP:PROD BLP [17:37 31 January 2011].
Before the week was out. The article was supplemented with specific citations as requested [00:59 03 February 2011].
On [00:17 17 March 2011] references to the article subjects education background were removed.
On the same day, [02:41 17 March 2011], the article's citations were removed.
Further, on the same day, [21:45 17 March 2011], the article was painted with further citation requests.
)On the same day,[08:06 22 March 2011], the article was nominated for deletion. hunters 00:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Work & Life / Wikiepdia Balance Being a new contributor to Wikipedia, The first article contribution was made in good faith. The timeline shows that when more experienced users have questioned the article, the advice was addressed. However, in more recent weeks, this has become harrassment and is dressed up with references to Wikiepdia protocols which is unfair as how are new users to be aware of the library of protocols when they start. Being a full time student of Media(Communication & Journalism) with humble resources, this user cannot justify extended "chat room" discussions from hidden usernames. I would prefer to manage this time best by further contributions and references when I can, college schedule and life permitting. Not all subjects have instant modern internet enabled archive newspaper references, most exist only in traditional paper form. This whole exercise demonstrates new contributers are not welcome to wikipedia. Users are not given time to develop their wikiepdia skillset and articles are not given time to build the sources hunters 00:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You should develop the article in your own user space until it meets quality standards before reintroducing it to the mainspace per WP:MINDREADER. —Bagumba (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fan go fóill; ~~Coimeád~~ Is feidir libh an airteagal as Gaeilge a léamh ar Vicipéid anois. Ta suil agam do deanamh sibh an athas oraibh. JdRacingPaddy (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Start Irish to English Translation) Wait It is now possible for you to read the article in Irish at Vicipéid(The Irish Wikiepdia). It is hoped you will be pleased with this effort. (End Irish to English Translation) In additon, hopefully this Irish translation will grow the Irish/English Wikipedia integration. It is planned that this translation will enable the wider Irish speaking community to contribute the neccessary sources and references to the article.JdRacingPaddy (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient independent sources to establish notability. Claims that the article has not had enough time to mature are exaggerated: It was created on Jan 31st and it is now early April. If sources haven't been found yet, that most probably means there are none. --Crusio (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any detailed coverage of him in reliable sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Féadfar an t-alt seo a fheidhmiú ar fhoras sealadach gan fuireach lena dhéanamh amach an bhfuarthas na nua-shócmhainni;JdRacingPaddy (talk)

Comment - Creating an unreferenced article on the Irish Wikipedia in hopes that maybe somebody in the future might add some reliable sources does not address the fact that this article in the English Wikipedia does not have such sources. -- Whpq (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2011 (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.