Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Fitzgerald (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Consensus among most experienced editors is that this is a case of WP:1E and WP:NOT. The "keep" opinions mostly do not approach the issue from the perspective of our inclusion policies and guidelines, and are consequently given less weight.  Sandstein  21:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Kate Fitzgerald
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:BIO. Subject of article notable only because of suicide and events surrounding it. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This is the first AfD for this article. Previous AfD was for a fictional character of the same name. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I originally put a prod2 with "sad as this story is, it's a classical case of BLP1E. In addition, the article reads more like an attack piece on the Savages and The Communications Clinic". This still holds. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Not only did the subject of this article play an important, and cited, role in Ireland during the US Election but she was also active in Irish political life. I have just added citations confirming this. I've looked at this article and if anything it's being far too kind about the role of The Communications Clinic. There are many places on the internet which are far more straightforward. 89.101.59.188 (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC) — 89.101.59.188 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - This young woman had a promising future in Irish public life. In addition, the manner in which the paper has handled her article has become a matter of public discussion in itself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nodin (talk • contribs) 21:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)  — Nodin (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If that is true, then there could conceivably be an article on the handling of the article, it doesn't make Fitzgerald notable, though. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly notable, but the article can be improved. Night of the Big Wind  talk  21:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you mind explaining why you think that this does not fall under WP:BLP1E? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it was a big thing in the Irish newspapers. Not for a day, but for a prolonged period. For the rest, see the statements op 89.101 and MoyrossLady. Night of the Big Wind  talk  23:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding too it, on the name "Kate Fitzgerald" you get a 100.000 internet hits and 102 Google News hits. Especially the Google News hits are remarkable, due to the fact that Google News its focus on the USA. Night of the Big Wind  talk  10:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I get 9 GNews hits (using "Kate Fitzgerald"), 4 of them about other persons with the same name and all about the one event. Searching the web, although 99,000 results are indicated, they boil down to 620 hits if you scroll to the end. Several of those are for a UMass professor and an actress of the same name, among several others. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fact is that the case is still hot, with another article today in the Irish Independent . There is enough media coverage to assume notability. Night of the Big Wind  talk  04:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Closing administrator should note that User:Night of the Big Wind has been following my deletion nominations after I added a notability tag to article he created, and has been cautioned to desist. His "keep" is not a good-faith contribution. User reported to AN/I.ScottyBerg (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. The page feels a little bit like a memorial page, and there are the issues compounded by WP:BLP1E.  As an aside, I recognize that BLP1E notes living persons (which, regretfully, Ms. Fitzgerald is no longer), but the situation that remains is that she is only notable for one event.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 22:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I really hate the idea that she's been branded a liar with no evidence to support that. Maybe it's true, but the IT should not apologise to the employer without telling us exactly why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meemeep (talk • contribs) 23:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)  — Meemeep (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - for next few weeks subject of multiple national newspaper articles. subject of prime time national TV interview (RTE 1, 3 Dec) and of national radio interviews (Newstalk). Subject of this article is linked with senior national figures in public life in Ireland, possibly leading to a much larger story revolving around the behaviour and ethical conflicts of a dominant PR company that both advises many national politicians from all parties and also runs the national broadcaster. MoyrossLADY (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is WP:NOT. 'Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events' and 'While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information'. - Rushyo  Talk  00:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it is premature to delete this article when it looks like it may be the start of a large national scandal concerning Irish PR, Politics and Media. If nothing alights in the next few weeks then delete. MoyrossLADY (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E which specifically deals with this case. Any notability as a matter of media handling or other such events may or may not be deserving of their own articles. Outside the single event does not appear to me (as a relatively uninterested third-party) to have WP:N having considered the arguments noted above and the content of article itself. - Rushyo  Talk  00:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that technically what's applicable is WP:1E, which is pretty much the same as BLP1E. ScottyBerg (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Utterly trivial. Not notable during life, and not ntable for circumstances of her depth. Minor media issue. conceivably worth a dsentence in the article on the Irish Times.  DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Kate was not only a major player in the Irish politics scene, but the events surrounding her suicide and the media response to it are of major importance to an Irish audience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drg85 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * She certainly was not a "major player" and the "major importance" is hyperbole. She was not notable before her death.  — O'Dea  (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The information contained here is a valuable resource for those looking for information not otherwise available on a significant occurrence in Ireland. CatInDeHat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.10.31 (talk) 12:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The information is not unavailable elsewhere. The media have reported it. — O'Dea  (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Kate's death has triggered worthwhile debate on suicide in Ireland. ciarawalshe — Ciarawalshe (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - Falls under WP:BLP1E, and unfortunately the E is her suicide. Tragic case but not notable. Snappy (talk) 15:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Nobody deserves to be killed twice nor to be the target of tittle-tattle. --  ClaudioSantos ¿?  17:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.105.241 (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC) In my opinion it's important on that basis and also because it's making many people take a closer look at the independence and ethics of our media. The story is still unfolding and may have over-arching effects for the Irish Times and the CC. Keep it for everyone who's searching for information about this story and can no longer trust that articles haven't been re-edited on request by one of the parties. I understand the issues with WP:1E but it seems to me that Kate Fitzgerald's name is so tied up with the discussion to remain relevant. CV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.30.246 (talk • contribs) — 89.101.30.246 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Suggestion: What about renaming it to Death of Kate Fitzgerald? Her parents have just been on TV talking about depression and suicide in The Brendan O'Connor Show on national television so she has caused debate on these topics.
 * Keep Wikipedia's notability criteria state "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" - we have the IT, the Independent, Broadsheet.ie and too many blogs to count, not including radio and tv interviews with her family. This story has hit a nerve with the Irish public and has contributed towards a greater discussion of suicide and depression.


 * Keep Unless somebody can prove why this article is false, there is NO reason for it to be removed. It falls very nicely under Wikipedia criteria. This story has been reported by multiple newspapers including RTE and TG4. This is in no way a minor incident. In Ireland it has been near the most shared story on facebook and twitter. It has already made a huge change on the view towards suicide in Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.36.148 (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC) — 86.40.36.148 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Oh WOW! It's on FACEBOOK and TWITTER! It must be notable then. Please note that perhaps this "incident" may have had effects on thinking in Ireland, but that does not yet mean that the biography of this person meets our inclusion guidelines. However, as so often with recent events, very few people manage to take some distance and realize that three months from now, this will likely have been forgotten (except, unfortunately, for the people close to the deceased person). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment As with most articles on wikipedia. Many start from news articles that afterwhile leave the media and make home on wikipedia for those who need to find out who this person was and why the debate started. The most important thing to note is this is an important event in Irish history with regards to suicide. Oh wow...you seemed to have missed RTE, TG4, The Irish Times, Sunday times etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.232.66 (talk) 08:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Note that this is actually a first deletion nomination for this subject, previously deleted article "Kate Fitzgerald" dealt with a fictional character. I have no opinion here other than to say it's a pretty close call on the basis of One Event, vs. extensive publicity. Honest people may differ as to inclusion-worthiness. Carrite (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Unfortunately there has been an effort by one of the parties involved to close down press coverage of the issue. This entry provides an authoritative review of events and it is important that users wishing to learn about the issue or chronology of events have access to this information. Additionally, deletion of this article would run the risk of appearing to be censorship.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.91.190 (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC) — 109.78.91.190 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. WP is not the news archive. - Nabla (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Suggest speedy close at keep, because the "discussion" is getting sour. Nominator is hunting down every IP as being a SPA and insulting others to get the article away. Better close this and start all over again in a week or two. Night of the Big Wind  talk  14:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Almost none of the "keep" !votes are based in some policy and don't go beyond WP:ILIKEIT (with only few exceptions like yourself). In contrast, there are several well-argued, policy-based "delete" !votes. A "delete" close is not excluded here (closures are based on policy, not on numbers of votes) and a speedy close as "keep" would therefore be totally inappropriate, whatever the problems between you and the nom. As an aside, it is completely appropriate to tag SPA editors. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Since I started this article, this case has received considerably more attention, with Kate Fitzgerald's parents appearing on the most widely-watched tv programme last Saturday. In this morning's Irish Times, the editor took the unusual step of writing an article under his own name justifying his role in this. This article has been greatly improved since I started it, particularly in regard to her notability, but it seems that one or two editors are using this discussion to make attacks on anybody who doesn't agree that it should be deleted. I think it should be kept, but I also think that the suggestion above of renaming it 'Death of Kate Fitzgerald' seems like a good compromise. Fyodor Dostoevsky (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think that challenging knee-jerk "it's in the news so it must be notable" votes is the same as attacking "anybody who doesn't agree that it should be deleted". Please, let's keep this discussion rational. You yourself are now saying that perhaps this article should be renamed, which is not something that would be necessary if this person was notable without any doubt. I have said it before and I repeat: the event may be notable (I have no opinion on that at this point), the person is not. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of "keep"s have been from IP spa's, the most I have seen in a long time. This is indicative of some kind of outside canvassing. While the article is now enlarged, with much attributed to a wordpress blog, one can't escape the fact that the notability of this person is directly related to her suicide. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Just as I suspected, there has been off-wiki attention focused on the underlying article and this deletion proposal. See . This would explain the intense interest from non-registered users. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So what? It is not illegal! As long as they see this procedure as a vote, I is more then likely that most of there comments are useless for the discussion due to lack of arguments. Night of the Big Wind  talk  15:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No one's saying it's "illegal." It's customary to tag SPAs, and this AfD is infested with them. That's why the tag exists. I am glad, however, that you acknowledge that their comments are useless and lack arguments of substance.ScottyBerg (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not too big to admit mistakes :-) Night of the Big Wind  talk  17:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * CommentAs I mentioned above, this story is being closed down in the Irish media by a powerful PR consultancy. People are therefore understandably suspicious of how this 'delete' nomination came about and whether it is valid or sinister in origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.110.39 (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And so much for WP:AGF... This delete nomination simply "came about" because this biography does not meet our inclusion criteria. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that is your personal opinion. I disagree with that. It is the second case of bullying by American that leads to the suicide of an young Irish woman in a short time. See Suicide of Phoebe Prince. Night of the Big Wind  talk  15:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not really a good example. Where's the biography of Phoebe Prince? Yet another case where perhaps the event was notable, but not the person. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is, because last night they screened a documentary about the case on the Irish national TV. Besides that, it was already suggested to move the article to Death of Kate Fitzgerald (Suicide of Kate Fitzgerald looks a better title) but it was you that rejected that too... Night of the Big Wind  talk  17:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Where did I reject that??? I've stated multiple times above that the event may be notable, but the person is not. Of course, a strong case can be made to merge articles like "Death of Phoebe Prince" and "Death of Kate Fitzgerald", but with all those people here thinking that we're making a newspaper, I know a hopeless cause if I see one. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just read back, my friend. I don't envy the closing administrator to dig through this mud of bad faith, personal attacks, called in friends and other misery to find the realistic arguments. Night of the Big Wind  talk  19:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Before posting my last comment, I read all of my previous comments twice. I just now read them a third time. I don't see any comment where I opposed moving some of the material in this biography to an article about the event (whether that be called "death of" or "suicide of"). Apart from that, I agree with your comment about the poor closing admin :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Secondly, The article Ms.Fitzgerald wrote sparked huge debate on freedom of the press and free speech in Ireland. This again is enough to qualify her to have an article on Wikipedia. Thirdly, Her death has begun a conversation that is extremely important to hundreds of people a year in Ireland. The way Ireland deals with Suicide is extremely important. The only reason this should be deleted is if you have no interest in American Politics, Freedom of speech and suicide awareness. If these do not interest you, if you believe these things are not notable, then I can understand your lack of appreciation for this article. Just from the fact that so many people fail to understand the importance is more argument for this piece to be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.36.148 (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Guillaume  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  00:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete — This is WP:BLP1E. Not a notable individual. Not notable before this single event, and not afterwards. — O'Dea  (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 *  Keep  This is a very simple issue. Kate Fitzgerald was the youngest ever leader of the democrats abroad in Ireland, this alone qualifies here under a notable figure in Ireland.
 * That she was a functionary in an American organization does not confer notability. Political organizers are not notable. There is no evidence that she has created any freedom of speech debate. Suicide awareness has already been increasing in Ireland in the past few years: this case did not initiate that; it has merely provided a fresh burst of discussion in the media because her story emerged because a newspaper article she wrote before her death. Finally, you cannot argue that the fact that people do not regard her as notable is proof that a Wikipedia article is needed to teach them otherwise. That is an absurd argument. — O'Dea  (talk) 10:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Warning — Please note that editor 86.40.36.148 has entered three KEEP votes in this discussion. Two of those should be subtracted from the tally. To editor 86.40.36.148: please do not attempt to queer the discussion by multiple votes. One man, one vote. — O'Dea  (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a discussion, not a vote.


 * Democrats abroad was nearly defunct before she started. If you think that Democrats abroad is an unimportant part of Irish society, then yes, you would believe this is not notable. Having this article here will educate you otherwise. If you believe there is no evidence, I suggest you read this article again and that this article should include the ongoing media coverage of this issue. I have never seen suicide awareness get so much publicity, can you tell about a similar incident that stayed in the media for weeks? Not being able to comprehend the importance of this particular death on suicide awareness would suggest a great need for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.36.148 (talk) 10:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notability outside of one event has not been shown. I really mean no disrepect, but this point is relevant - if the subject was still alive, this article would not have been written.  WP:1E applies.  I do not see that 'keeping the public informed' and similar arguments are relevant. Colon el  Tom 11:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - sadly because any person's death as a result of bullying is a tragic event but this article as it stands and with the current title fails WP:1E. Most of the press coverage seems to me to be about the bullying aspect and not Kate's life and as such if there is an appropriate article then Kate should be mentioned (possibly to quite a lot of detail) in an article about bullying and/or people who have committed suicide becasue of bullying. 62.25.109.201 (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Rewrite the lede as a sumary of the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:55, 9 December 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.