Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Oren 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Michael Oren Fitzgerald

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested prod. Plagarism and vanity.
 * Delete as nom. Largely plagarized from this web page, the disinterested and neutral opinions of his publisher; t this edit has converted some of this into close paraphrase; but is that enough? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My attention was drawn to this by a move request; it may be moved in the middle of this AfD. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * More investigation is required, but upon first glance some of the sourcing seems exceedingly suspect. One source is a page on "bloomingtonwiki".  The source was cited by  in, some four hours before an account of the same name  whose article was cited supposedly in support of the editing here.  This self-serving sourcing is a canonical example of why we usually don't treat wikis as reliable sources. Uncle G (talk) 13:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Keep'Multiple sources of information are referenced throughout the article. Even if you discount the reliability of Fitzgerald's publisher as a source, it is one of many that are posted throughout the article.  According to Wikipedia's own guidelines on precedent and notablity standards, peer reviewed journals are considered reliable sources of information, see notation 3 to Sacred Web.  Also, the benchmark for notablity for authors is to be independently reviewed and to win awards for their works.  Reviews for Fitzgerald's work from Publishers Weekly and Library Journal are both included in the article, as well as a listings and references for over 15 awards that he has won.Stephenbloomington (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This guy is probably notable per WP:N, but the current article is anything but neutral and is more a holography (see WP:NPOV). This article probably needs to be reduced to a stub if it can't be repaired. Hobit (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your observations and recommendations. I have deleted material, done additional research and added a more of independent documentation.Stephenbloomington (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. It appears that he does meet the standards of WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK.  However, the article as it currently stands is a complete mess, focusing on mind-numbing trivialities.  I agree that it should be pruned down to a shrub of a stub. Qworty (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note. The move request resulted in the page not being moved.  The closing admin may want to consider the need to a dab page at Michael Fitzgerald if this article is kept. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Information has been thoroughly re-edited since original application for deletion has been posted. Much of the superfluous information has been removed, or whittled down to the essential. Allegations of plagiarism would definitely not longer be applicable. Stephenbloomington (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Page meets notability standards and has been sufficiently re-edited to answer objections from PMAnderson and Uncle G. (Temp07) —Preceding undated comment added 05:07, 25 January 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.