Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Fitzgerald (hoaxer)


 * 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   redirect to Reliability of Wikipedia. Many of the keep arguments were based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or the fact that what he did was notable (WP:BLP1E). Some of the information may be selectively merged. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Shane Fitzgerald (hoaxer)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

He is only notable for one (relatively minor) event, so there shouldn't be an article about him per WP:SINGLEEVENT. There's currently a proposed merge but I'm not even convinced it's even worth mentioning anywhere. Laurent (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

— 89.234.119.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Hold on a second this event you called minor yet for such a minor event by an irish student it has received world wide press from places such as USA and Australia. It is living proof that if one journalist is doing I am certain there are more doing it. Fair play to the guy for highlighting this. Big deal they apologised but in actual effect the man reponsible should be sacked. No place for lazy journalism like that in this world!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.125.114 (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC) — 86.45.125.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Agree with nom that this is a case of WP:BLP1E. The concept is not new, and there's no place on WP for an article on such a hoaxers (even though the faulty information came through this site). Ohconfucius (talk) 09:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, minutiae about one-event person. Punkmorten (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * DON'T DELETE This is a significant discovery. These reporters get paid an awful lot of money for what? to get there articles off wiki. A disgrace and with people who are struggling to survive due to no work being available I think this should be kept!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.234.119.117 (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a discovery. Journalists are not perfect and sometime some of them don't check their sources. Here it happened to the Guardian, which is quite rare. They found out about it, they apologized for it and explained what happened, so let's move on. Laurent (talk) 11:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - notable for a single event, being a mild piece of Wikipedia vandalism that was picked up by various news sources before other editors removed it. No coverage for anything beyond this one event, no recognised and enduring contribution to his chosen field (vandalism? hoaxes?), no notable awards, not cited by his peers, no substantial body of work, not a groundbreaker in any apparent way (Wikipedia having been vandalised by people doing "experiments" for some years). Fails every point of WP:BIO. No doubt a great guy and a surprisingly successful experiment, but simply not notable enough for a standalone article. Euryalus (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It would be the event itself that is or is not notable, not this person. Drawn Some (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There are many examples of hoaxes that are less notable than this, yet included in Wikipedia. Aaronwinborn (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Considered WP:OTHERCRAP? Greg Tyler (t &bull; c) 07:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep While it is more the hoax that is notable than the hoaxer it's such a new hoax that the hoax itself doesn't have a name. If someone wanted to read about it on Wikipedia they'd probably look for it under Shane's name. I don't have a problem with merging the article into another article. But which article - one on journalistic ethics, media hoaxes, internet hoaxes, Wikipedia? I think this hoax is pretty important because of a few things:


 * 1) It speaks to the veracity of information on our beloved Wikipedia (both that the information may be invalid and that the community is remarkably good at spotting false info and removing it).
 * 2) It speaks to the veracity of information of the internet in general, and the way that information and mis-information can spread rapidly.
 * 3) It speaks to the fact that Wikipedia's own criteria for validation can be circumvented with the writers of print sources use Wikipedia as a source in the first place.
 * 4) It made the news all around the world (I read about it when it was the featured news piece on the front page of yahoo.com).

Well, that's my position. Kevin Rector (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: We can still redirect Shane Fitzgerald (hoaxer) to whatever page the event is mentioned on. I still fail to see the point he made though. Any serious journalist knows that the internet in general, and Wikipedia in particular cannot be used as a primary source of information. In that case, only one journalist made a mistake (the rest were bloggers who have no obligation to check their source or be reliable) - can we really make a general case out of it? Laurent (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It should also be noted that there is some discussion on the notability of this article on the talk page. Kevin Rector (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLP1E, then redirect to either Reliability of Wikipedia or Wikipedia (as suggested on the article's talk page). It's the event that's potentially notable, not the person - and the event is already mentioned in one of the suggested redirect targets. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLP1E, and redirect to (well....): Reliability of Wikipedia would be my choice. As a biographical article, it can't help but not pass WP:BLP1E, as it is the event, rather than the person, who is the main subject of reportage and subsequent notability. An article on the hoax itself would probably would not be appropriate as the hoax itself is unlikely to be the subject of any ongoing discussion in reliable sources. But there are enough reliable sources for a passing mention in the Reliability of Wikipedia article. (Personal observation: for any essay writers out there, there is a Wikipedia essay waiting to happen on the pitfalls for journos using Wikipedia as a primary source.) FlowerpotmaN &middot;( t ) 21:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge Into Reliability_of_Wikipedia. While Mr. Fitzgerald himself may not be notable as a hoaxer, his tricks did attract significant news coverage as an example of Wikipedia's prominence as an online reference source. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This man is notable for the status of the MSM outlets he "exposed" and because he was testing a view, previously suspected, that MSM journalists frequently use unreferenced Wiki (and likely other) info and present it as fact. His name has been published in MSM outlets across the globe and he is discussed daily on the net and elsewhere. I beleive the deletion proposal contains a hint of sour grapes. Sarah777 (talk) 06:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway, for those who disapprove of what Fitzgerald did I wouldn't fancy becoming notable on Wiki from my early twenties as "Sarah (hoaxer)". Hard to shake that off :) Sarah777 (talk) 06:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete for a few reasons. Firstly, WP:BLP1E. Secondly, it wasn't really a notable event. Thirdly, this is just targetted vandalism. Lots of people do that every day, why draw out this one? That's really the clincher for me - why should we have an article specifically about someone who's done nothing more than vandalise Wikipedia? Greg Tyler (t &bull; c) 07:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a notable event, it made the news around the world, it's not one of the thousands of vadalisms Wikipedia faces, it was a significant misinformation that led to notability. Kevin Rector (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Definitely.  This person, did something that effected several major newspapers--read by millions of people--and then other newspapers reported on what he did.  It's notable.  I wanted to read about it.  It caused a ton of discussion.  If the event was worthy of news coverage, it is not a stretch for the individual whose name was repeatedly mentioned in that coverage to have a Wikipedia entry. I suspect that some of the hesitation to give him a page is due to the fact that he gamed Wikipedia (even though the whole story confirmed that Wikipedians were more investigative than professional journalists).  This article should continue to show that Wikipedia is a place to read about subjects, one which is as if not more verifiable than some professional sources, and about more topics than they are capable of covering.12.40.50.1 (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. However, there should be more information added, such as his year of birth, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually, there should be less information since he is only known for one event. Creating an entire article about this event is already undue weight, let alone a biography of Fitzgerald. Laurent (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename if kept regardless of how notable the incident is, this is a classic BLP1E case, because Shane Fitzgerald isn't notable for anything but this incident. It should be about the event (if there should be an article at all), not the person. 140.247.125.131 (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Reliability of Wikipedia. His only claim to fame is vandalising Wikipedia. Not a notable person. Fences and windows (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Reliability of Wikipedia. Not notable for anything else, clearly BLP1E. Snappy (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2009 (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.