Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary 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 keep. JForget 02:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Fitzgerald

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

Non notable failed local election candidate. Got a brief mention in the Willie O'Dea affidavit controversy, hence WP:1E applies. Snappy (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The debate is welcome but should not merely concentrate on the fact that the subject stood for election. Changing the law on Cabinet secrecy is significant. The decision to ignore an explicit Constitutional provision in favour of an EU directive is of huge importance. The complaint of willie o'dea is how Gary Fitzgerald came to public attention but he had many interviews on radio, tv and profiles in the press prior to this. The complaint remains alive and is therefore relevant. Due mainly to snappy talks feedback the article was improved with a large number of reliable news sources provided. If Gary Fitzgerald was merely a failed election candidate there would be no defence to deletion, but nama, willie o'dea, internal green criticism and the legal challenge for openness on environmental matters, puts him in a similar category to Anthony Coughlan or Raymond Crotty. The Article, however, stands on its now merits. Dublinborn (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is a mess, and in urgent need of a big cleanup (I made a quick start, but there is a lot more to do). Anyway, the issue here is not the state of the article but the notability of Fitzgerald, and this guy is clearly a high-profile political activist notable for a number of things, with extensive coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he is a sincere activist, and knows how to get on tv, radio, and in the papers, which is not notable for an activist. A borderline case, but what tips me against the article is that Dublinborn's contributions are all about Mr GF, and then DB himself goes off the radar, indicating competent activism more than anything else. GF has concentrated on the very notable O'Dea and NAMA stories, but is hardly alone in that, and was not the first to make his points by a long shot. So I go along with snappy on this.Red Hurley (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Apologies for the amateur/messy of the draft since this was my first attempt at starting a page (perhaps better to have started with some edits), so thanks to BHG for the cleanup. The Constitutional issue on the Cabinet secrecy may appear to be the stuff of academia, but it is of importance on a number of fronts, particulary the role of subsidiary State bodies interpreting the Constitution, the supremacy of EU law and when cabinet discussions must be released. It is not quite in the Crotty sphere of legal/politcal importance, but it may well be by the end of the month if the Government lose (again) and have to go to the Supreme Court. The subject is an experienced activist from the Sensible Public Transport in Dublin campaign (referred to but not yet cited), through to NAMA (not alone but quite to the forefront as shown by the media coverage) and O'Dea (the only person to make an actual complaint AFAIK and done prior to the resignation). He was cited in the page on the willie O'Dea affidavit affair prior to my contribution. I will try to improve page again, and check in from time to time. Dublinborn (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

summary

The "vote" is 2-2. Snappy has not resiled from his initial response to the artice that it should be deleted, but he has conceded that the subject is notable for at least one reason. BrownHairedGirl and Red Hurley, recognise that the subject is notable as a sincere activist who knows hoe to get publicity for his causes, but they differ on the approach to the article. Red Hurley's main objection is that he dislikes my contributions (or lack of them). The article has been viewed 120 times, this month and this page has been viewed 38 times, but only 4 people weighed in. The subject is likely to gain further notoriety/publicity at the end of this month, as judgment is expected in his High Court action and the Green Party's convention is to be held. I suggest holding off any further consideration of deletion until then. Thanks for the input (and again for the assistance in improving the article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dublinborn (talk • contribs) 16:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient sources. just remove the extensive promotionalism. It is not surprising that many minor party politicians will be found notable if enough care is taken to find sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to me to be a minor player, but we have to follow the sources. Here, they are sufficiently significant and reliable to establish notability beyond the mere events in which he has been involved. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2010 (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.