Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Corey Delaney discussion

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A timeline of events has grown to be come absurd in regards to an article on Corey Delaney. The management of the process in regards to this article has failed from a number of perspectives. Timeline:

• 06:29, 15 January 2008, user Voodoo77 created Corey Delaney
• 06:49, 15 January 2008, administrator Tijuana Brass deleted Corey Delaney "Speedy deleted per (CSD G2), was a test page."
• 07:29, 15 January 2008, user Fosnez created Corey Delaney
• 08:10, 15 January 2008, administrator Nightscream placed Corey Delaney for deletion via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney.
• 21:52, 15 January 2008, J Bar redirected Corey Worthington to Corey Delaney
• 22:21, 15 January 2008, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney was closed as delete by administrator Daniel
• 22:22, 15 January 2008, Corey Delaney was deleted by administrator Daniel per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney. At the same time, it was protected from further recreation.
• 22:23, 15 January 2008, Corey Worthington was deleted by administrator Daniel under WP:CSD R2. [note: this should have been WP:CSD#R1 instead, but was a typo. Daniel (talk)]
• 22:37, 15 January 2008, user Benjiboi placed Corey Delaney for deletion review [1]
• 11:28, 16 January 2008, user Deathlibrarian created Corey Worthington Delaney
• 11:55, 16 January 2008, administrator Canley speedy deleted Corey Worthington Delaney as previously deleted content.
• 14:16, 16 January 2008, user Lawrence Cohen placed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney for Miscellany for deletion
• 20:00, 17 January 2008, administrator Orderinchaos closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney as keep.
• 03:37, 20 January 2008, user Ajayvius create Corey Worthington Delaney
• 05:35, 20 January 2008, administrator IronGargoyle closed the DRV as deletion endorsed.
• 04:00, 20 January 2008, administrator Accounting4Taste placed Corey Worthington Delaney for deletion via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Worthington Delaney.
• 04:12, 20 January 2008, administrator Longhair speedy deleted as recreated content & protected Corey Worthington Delaney against recreation.
• 22:57, 1 February 2008, administrator ChrisO deleted and protected Corey Delaney.
• 16:16, 1 February 2008, administrator Awiseman restored Corey Worthington claiming subject was notable, and act for which he was heavily chastised and warned [2].
• On 1 February 2008, administrator East718 deleted Corey Worthington under BLP concerns/WP:CSD G4, and protected it against recreation.
• On 4 February 2008, administrator Awiseman placed Corey Worthington for deletion review [3].
• On 10 February 2008, administrator Trialsanderrors restored Corey Worthington as a result of his conclusions of the DRV [4]. At the time of close, on strict vote counting it was 22 over turn, and 18 endorse...hardly a consensus.
• On 10 February 2008, administrator Trialsanderrors started a second AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Worthington (2nd nomination)) on the restored article, and claimed "as a referral from WP:DRV, this nomination is outside the remit of WP:CSD".
• On 10 February 2008, administrator Camaron recreated Corey Delaney as a redirect and protected it due to BLP concerns, following a related request at WP:RFPP.
• On 10 February 2008, administrator Camaron recreated Corey Worthington Delaney as a redirect and protected it due to BLP concerns, following a related request at WP:RFPP.
• On 12 February 2008, administrator MZMcBride deleted Corey Worthington with the rational of "(WP:BLPUNDEL)" and a comment left on the talk page of User:JoshuaZ.
• On 13 February 2008, editor Nobody of Consequence placed Corey Worthington on deletion review [5].
• On 13 February 2008, administrator Coredesat closed the 13 February deletion review as speedy close [6]
• On 14 February 2008, administrator Coredesat re-opened the 13 February DRV [7] after receiving a complaint regarding the DRV close from JoshuaZ [8].
• On 18 February 2008, administrator Kurykh closed the 13 February DRV as deletion endorsed [9].
• On some date, some user creates Corey Delaney (party boy).
• On 7 May 2008, user User:Triwbe places Corey Delaney (party boy) for deletion via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney (party boy)
• On 7 May 2008, administrator DJ Clayworth closes Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney (party boy) as speedy delete of recreated material [10]
• On 7 May 2008, administrator DJ Clayworth speedy deletes Corey Delaney (party boy).
• On 7 May 2008, user Dihydrogen Monoxide placed Corey Delaney on deletion review [11].
• On 16 May 2008, user JayKeaton placed Corey Worthington for deletion review [12] suggesting it be recreated as a redirect to Big Brother Australia 2008.
• On 16 May 2007, administrator Daniel closed the 16 May 2008 DRV as allowing the creation of the redirects [13]
• On 16 May 2008, administrator Daniel created Corey Delaney and Corey Worthington as redirects. These were subsequently fully protected.
• On 16 May 2008, administrator Camaron created Corey Worthington Delaney as a redirect. This was subsequently fully protected.
• On 18 May 2008, administrator Nakon closed the 7 May 2007 DRV as deletion endorsed [14].

In effect, this series of events is a long, ongoing edit war lasting now nearly a month, with admins over riding each other periodically. We already had an AfD which closed as delete, then a DRV that was overwhelming for delete. Then, with it placed for DRV again, we get no consensus, but an administrator (User:Trialsanderrors) decides no consensus means it should be relisted for AfD. This effectively flips the no consensus result from delete to keep, taking it from DRV where no consensus means no consensus to override deletion to AfD where no consensus to delete means the article stays. I find this highly problematic.

The process has failed here. Administrators can't seem to sort themselves out over this. Note that I'm not stating a stance here with regards to whether the subject of the article is notable or not, just that the process here has badly broken down. It should have remained as deleted, but this mockery of the process will result in it being kept. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Might be one for RFAR. Lawrence § t/e 17:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. The point at which the process broke was AWiseman's recreation of the Corey Worthington article after the deletion and salting of Corey Delaney, a clear end-run round policy, as I have noted in the AfD, and one for which the administrator was heavily criticised. Why on earth was it not deleted at this point? Black Kite 18:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Personally, I think because nobody has the courage to do so. I am also quite displeased with what I see as User:Trialsanderrors's mismanagement of the second DRV forcing an obvious no-consensus AfD, when there was no consensus to undelete. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• This is not necessarily the case. The person in question has been referred to as both "Corey Delaney" and "Corey Worthington", so it is possible that AWiseman simply created an article with the name "Corey Worthington" not realising "Corey Delaney" had already been through deletion. If the article was allowed to exist long enough to be edited (yes I'm taking swipe a over zealous admins here, deal with it) then perhaps we would only have one name to deal with. Hell I don't even know what he real name is, and I would normally refer to the wikipedia for this kind of info. Fosnez (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Tangentally, but interestingly (at least to me) - this article demonstrates the dangers of "immediate news" based inclusion of articles. Initially, Corey was a news story. Then the story grew, and his claim to notability grew (as he was considered to present a TV program, major media outlets interviewed him, etc). So, as the story grew and his claim to notability grew, consensus changed - sort of. Maybe. Kind of. The result is the cluster'd timeline delineated above. - Philippe | Talk 18:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe we should attempt some sort of centralised discussion in an attempt to sort this out amongst the Community, as oppose to forwarding it to the Arbitration Committee. It may be worthwhile directing the matter to Wikipedia:Requests for Comment, and getting the input of all involved, as well as uninvolved Wikipedians. However, I do believe that Arbitration would be premature at the present moment—I simply think we need the discussion which aims to gauge consensus requires refocussing and decluttered. AGK (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm wrong, but shouldn't this go to an ArbCom case?? If we remember the brouhaha the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war and the ephemeral Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN, it seems there are some issues that just don't get consensus, and generate more heat than light. Whether we have a request for arbitration should be discussed first: it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't approach - a Wikipedian hot potato. Sorry, spoke in a few too many metaphors there. But the basic point is that input from all areas of the community and consensus is needed first.

That's my take on it. --Solumeiras (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be going more or less as it should be. Notability was not initially clear, now it is more so. I'm not sure why there is any serious additional issue here that needs to be addressed. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Of course not, as you believe the article should be kept. This is not about whether it should be kept or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I mean process-wise it seems to be more or less going as it should be. A few burps in process shouldn't make us feel a need to run to ArbCom. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't call the above timeline "burps". It's an insult to the process that was used in this case. If we did all cases like this, we'd happily DRV everything until people were blue in the face. There's a reason the article was deleted the first time. There's a reason it went to DRV, and a reason why it failed DRV. Continuing on, the administrator who decided to shut down the DRV effectively decided there was consensus to undelete the article when it was blatantly obvious there wasn't. Now, we're in a situation where gosh golly gee if we don't reach consensus it'll be KEPT when one AFD and two DRVs said do NOT keep. That's absurd. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• I think we differ in two respects; one I don't see any serious issues with actions above. Awiseman started a new article with new material (see the relevant discussion on the DRV). Nothing else was even remotely out of practice. And yes, the DRV was close, but luckily these things are completely votes. Indeed, the response of reAfDing given that the final DRV was leaning towards overturning seems like a reasonable response (and incidentally, for most purposes, a a majority for keep is keep). It seems the the closer agreed that the new article was not obviously CSDable so I'm not sure what further issues there are. And your complaint that a lack of consensus on this AfD will result in keep, well why not, the standard rule is when in doubt don't delete so... JoshuaZ (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• I hardly call a near even split of consensus on the second DRV as "leaning towards overturning". There was no consensus to undelete. Period. None. The standard rule doesn't apply here. This article was already AfD'd, lost, was DRV'd, lost, was DRV'd a second time, and improperly recreated when no consensus existed to overturn the AFD. How many times do we have to AFD and DRV this thing before a conclusion is reached? If you think the close of the currently running AFD is going to solve this, I'd say there's a huge chance you're wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's predictable already. Whichever way this AfD is closed, it'll go to DRV, where all the same editors will have to waste more of their time with the same answers (since DRV seems to function as AFD2 these days). Then, after the DRV (if it's deleted), no doubt someone else will recreate it in userspace, add a couple of citations to it mentioning something really newsworthy that Corey's done, and re-create it claiming that it's not CSD:G4 material, and then it'll be AFD'd, and .... etc. This process lawyering should've stopped after the deletion and salting and I'm surprised that anyone can claim otherwise; if this was the norm, we'd never delete anything that had a group of editors to support it (voice from the back: "consensus trumps process!"). Um, yeah. Black Kite 22:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Then someone should have the courage to shut down this farcical process and delete the thing already. It can be revisited in a few months if he becomes famous for something other than getting in a gang fight, such as actually doing the job of hosting parties and becoming notable for it. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLPUNDEL. How there was a consensus to restore as a result of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 4 is, with all due respect to trialsanderrors (who I have great admiration for), beyond me. Sorry, but this should be redeleted and immediately, preferably by trialsanderrors. Or else I fear the shit will hit the fan again. Daniel (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

MZMcBride (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) has deleted the article per BLPUNDEL. I've salted it and closed the AfD. And I strongly suggest against an admin restoring this again out of process, I will block them. Maxim_(talk) 01:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

BLPUNDEL still requires some set of logic behind the closing administrator. I've asked MZMcBride to expand on her lgoic. Meanwhile Maxim I don't think block threats are very helpful to a matter which otherwise is being discussed civilly. And in general, blocking other admins... creates drama but doesn't do much else. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's uncivil to make a very clear block threat here. If you restore the article again, that will cause much more drama than the block, which I believe would be very deserving in that situation as a preventative measure., to prevent more BLP abuse. Maxim_(talk) 01:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has intended to state that they were going to restore it so you can kindly calm down. Furthermore, calling this article "BLP abuse" is not helpful; no content was poorly sourced. The sole issue in question is BLP1E which is a general guideline which doesn't normally trigger the reasons we care about BLP penumnbra issues. At the risk of self-promotion, you may wish to read my thoughts on BLPs. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm giving fair warning not to attempt it. I think the objective is to do no harm here, and we're potential doing that, not only to subject but to ourselves with this drama... ;-) Maxim_(talk) 01:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how legitimate, reasoned if spirited discussion constitutes doing harm to ourselves. And given the level of press coverage that Delaney/Worthington has received and continues to receive and given how much continual self-promotion he engages in I have trouble seeing how we are doing any potential harm to him. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"The sole issue in question is BLP1E which is a general guideline which doesn't normally trigger the reasons we care about BLP penumnbra issues" — eh, WP:BLP1E was what started the BDJ case in the first place, with the QZ article. Daniel (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, yes and no. BDJ was started over a variety of articles as I understand it, and as point of fact is in many ways stricter than current practice. Furthermore, the fundamental issue there was distinct; that was essentially an application of BLP1E in a more or less clearcut case which is distinct in the extreme where many have argued that BLP1E isn't relevant given the level of continuing coverage. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I like ultimatums, ultimatums are great, "I'm right you're wrong, and if you don't agree with that, I'll block, you know. . .to reduce the drama." Sounds great. Carry on then, R. Baley (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the above:

Dispute issues
The issues here seem to be summed up (roughly) as follows:

• This is a teenager who precipitated an incident, and became discussed in the media for it.
• The incident was widely reported, and following it the subject gained some presence (whether minor or significant is disputed) in the media.
• There are good arguments for both keep and delete (there are probably others) --

• Keep - multiple reliable sources, person notable beyond the incident, incident notable even if person isn't, ability to write an article on the events and impact of it, consensus can change (wider notability visible now), NPOV/N (we report neutrally provided the article meets normal community criteria).
• Delete - minor incident by a kid, no special historical significance, not a place to record every insane incident, BLP1E, BLP (we don't darken a borderline subject's entire life for a dumb incident in their teens).
• Either/both - both claim legitimacy from proces (AFD/DRV) and both have been warred over (delete/undelete) for whatever reason, by admins.

WP:BLP deletion
BLP essentially exists to protect living people from 1/ bad biographies and negative, non-neutral, writings, and 2/ disclosure of unencyclopedic privacy-related information, on Wikipedia.

The "up front deletion" aspects of WP:BLP exist for specific essential reasons, to protect a subject from actively being defamed (etc) whilst we debate at leisure. It exists for negative unsourced material, "attack articles", and in the case of borderline subjects where they have requested deletion, we allow for that too. In the present case no request has been received from the subject related to removal, nor is the article negative in the sense that BLP deletion criteria anticipate. It is not enough to say "its a bio" to draw on WP:BLP for deletion. The "delete it first, then discuss" approach does not exist in a vacuum and never has; it was established originally for the specific purpose of protecting people from negative unsourced material, use of the wiki for personal attack and defamation, and (later agreed) hurtful publicity to publicity-avoidant subjects who may be borderline at best anyway and have requested removal, by deeming that such material was removed whilst the case was discussed, and may stay deleted if there is doubt.

The other aspects of BLP are not really a basis per se for pre-emptory deletion. That we often merge a bio of someone known for one incident (WP:BLP1E) into the article on the incident, or remove it if historically transient, is as much due to normal long-standing notability criteria for articles as anything else. That approach is long standing. Historically it is not grounds for pre-emptory deletion, as in, we don't have a general norm that we pre-emptorily delete articles up front on the speculation that we might perhaps agree the subject is not notable enough to have an individual bio article if we discussed it. That's normal AFD/DRV scope; it doesn't make it a negative "piece". The possibility an AFD/DRVB might conclude we merge/redirect does not make it fall under up-front deletion rules by any reading of BLP or norms, traditional or present, that I am aware of. Those are well-intentionsed but misunderstandings of the intent of the pre-emptory deletion provisions of BLP, which is specifically to remove material which might be negative, dubious, unsourced, questionable, biased material, whilst we debate its fairness and suitability.

I hope disputes like these will become sorted out more by some form of careful discussion and consensus seeking, rather than by warring. In most deletion wheel wars, the content issue is resolved in the end by discussion anyhow, and the wheeling (delete/undelete repetitions) didn't help anyone, and ended up harming the community more (including those wound up, and those sometimes desysopped). Hopefully instead, a carefully considered decision process might take place, followed by a final delete or undelete, subject always to discussion and change of consensus (either way) if new evidence emerges in future.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• (List of sources added by Fosnez: - [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] Many more). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fosnez (talk • contribs) 10:00, February 12, 2008

I have been watching this one pretty closely, and am strongly opposed to having a biography on an underage based only on the media's desire to turn this kid into a notable person. In my opinion, the undeletion was unnecessary, as I dont like having the same discussion rehashed weekly; more of the same news isnt reason to discard the prior consensus. The DRV also wasnt consensus to undelete. That said, I am even less happy with the deletion under BLP. I agree with FT2 -- the BLP issues here are not so disturbing that this needed to be speedied -- the deletion discussion was leaning towards no consensus, which would have been a delete outcome. Why the rush to delete? I would like to undelete and lock the article in order to allow the AFD to continue to proceed, but I dont want to prolong this slow-running wheel war. Could a few people comment on whether this is reasonable.

John Vandenberg (talk) 03:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur that the BLP issues are not critical in this case, and that there should be no haste in deleting out of process. If everyone can agree that this was handled improperly in general, we can probably call a mulligan and restore the article for a proper, reasonable AfD to be closed after 5 days or more by an uninvolved admin who will properly judge consensus. And let's leave it at that. There's no need to take this to arbcom, and no real purpose served in arguing over whose consensus was disregarded. Let's determine consensus and move on.

It may be of value to evaluate the requirements of WP:BLP to see if some clarification is needed as to what cases call for immediate speedy deletion, and which cases merit discussion before deletion. Even if it's a set of procedural guidelines or examples, it would surely help admins (particularly new ones) to properly administer what is ultimately one of our key policies. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy with that result, unfortunately Maxim per above is threatening to block anyone who does something like that. So the only way forward appears to file yet another DRV and get permission to open another AfD. I'm becoming more convinced that that should be done. FT2's comment above especially makes me think that. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont think that will be required. If I can have one or two more admin supports, I am quite happy to undelete and lock, and if Maxim still feels like blocking that is OK by me. I have other ways to use my time. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So long as the debate proceeds without shenanigans, I would support that. If the wheel warring prevented consensus before, then I would hope that my fellow admins would leave it alone for five days to determine (or prove) consensus. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And so it continues. Let me get this right - JoshuaZ wants another DRV, and Jayvdb wants to undelete (and thus spark another AfD). Haven't we, er, been here already? Three times?Black Kite 07:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, the only reason I'm arguing for DRV rather than just continuing the earlier AfD is that there are block threats by some people who want it to stay deleted. If DRV closes as saying an AfD can continue that more or less avoids that matter. I have no problem personally with continuing the AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we are beating a dead horse here. How many times does this need to be voted on? We are making an utter joke of ourselves here. Even news.com.au seem to think so - they're calling it "Round one" and "Round two". The behaviour of some of those (note: not all or even a majority) who want to keep is getting borderline disruptive. Orderinchaos 10:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No. I want the AFD to run for the full duration rather than being speedied after 2 days. I dont support trialsanderrors's decision to relist, but I still respect that action as it put the article back in view of non-admins, and it moves the discussion to a more appropriate venue (DRV is for reviewing the deletion, AFD is for collaboratively deciding whether we want an article on a given topic). "BLP" should only be used as the basis of a speedy deletion when there is a substantial BLP problem in the article - just because someone is living isnt reason to delete otherwise the George W. Bush would be deleted every half an hour. BLP should not be invoked simply to quash discussion/drama/controversy. John Vandenberg (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I explained my DRV closure on my talk page. To summarize what I've posted before, I expect that my fellow admins respect my decisions at DRV enough to offer their objections on my talk page before they take actions to overturn it. Other behavior might result in blocking, as I consider it a direct attack on the integrity of DRV as a community decision making forum. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Aaah, the wonders of consensus. Where I come from, closing (not one but) multiple debates as delete means the article should be deleted. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I would note that at least two of the AfDs have been covered in the Australian national media: [35] and [36], with editors votes being quoted. As such, this ongoing saga has a some potential to impact on Wikipedia's standing in Australia and the coverage of the articles obviously makes strict adherence to WP:BLP particularly important. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Communal consensus seeking -- When the community hasn't sorted consensus out fully beforehand - as it seems for whatever reason is the case - the best solution is often to do it once more, with care, because consensus does not mean "majority" so much as "common agreement. This approach was the case in numerous disputes and debates that got further decision-making, not just one or two. Given the above actions, it is clear that for whatever reason consensus is not yet achieved. As stated: "both [views] claim legitimacy from process (AFD/DRV) and both have been warred over (delete/undelete) for whatever reason".

BLP -- Our policy on biographies of living people (BLP) are always important to follow scrupulously (indifferent to whether whether or not we have people watching; assume there always are; we're a wiki.) BLP exists for very specific purposes. Those purposes are to protect living people from 1/ negative, non-neutral, biographical writings, and 2/ disclosure of unencyclopedic privacy-related information, on Wikipedia. We also 3/ may decide (at communal discretion) to respect the requests of borderline notable people, who are distressed by an article on them. If article content is of these kinds, we may delete it or remove the relevant material whilst debating, which is appropriate. Covered above. It is not an umbrella for deletions outside those purposes though, and was never intended as such. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with a minor always makes things very tricky, though. Wouldn't it be more correct to simply hold back on this one until Corey either (a) disappears from sight after his 15 minutes are up (as per the now forgotten Rachael Bell ([37] shows enough reliable sources to technically make her article-worthy, but oddly...) or (b) actually becomes notable for something other than holding a party? i.e. actually makes a high-profile career out of it? This has the bonus that wikipedia doesn't make itself look even more ridiculous than it does already, as pointed out above. Black Kite 12:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I personally think there is absolutely no rush, and no harm in waiting. We have a real problem with recentism here. (There's also the James Barry story, another case involving a minor which made headlines, almost entirely on news.com.au, a tabloid current affairs TV show and several sites piggy-backing off news.com.au). Orderinchaos 13:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the same at all. Barry didn't make international headlines and isn't still getting coverage a month after the initial incident. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. He was still getting coverage 13 months after the incident, although he did make international headlines - albeit mainly in the United States. Orderinchaos 00:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? I didn't realize it got that much coverage. In that case, I don't see an objection to an article on that subject (although I don't even remember what he did. And if I recall he wasnt trying to self-promote himself with his parents approval afterwards). JoshuaZ (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, was just another moral panic issue created by Today Tonight and News Ltd, and milked by the two individuals concerned for money and self-promotion (they were remarkably available for interviews and threw in more than a few non-facts to rile the conservatives - we even had federal MPs discussing it at one stage). Search for that and Karen Anderson on google, it's really not worth repeating the details here. Orderinchaos 02:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I forgot about all that crap. I'm sorry to be reminded about it. I will however point out that since Anderson was apparently American, US coverage isn't really international. In any event, I'm not inclined to write an article on the subject. Even if there were more sources, I just have better things to do with my time (frankly, I'd never write the article on Delaney myself, my main issue is that I think he's a valid topic for an article that if people want to write we should let them). Note to self: the next time someone tells you about a short-lived moral panic that you vaguely remember, don't bother looking it up. You'll just feel dumber. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, and with us having a deadline to work to we must have an article right away, while it's still news and while we need a crystal ball to tell whether it'll be remembered in three months, let alone next year. "Corey ... is an Australian, best known for holding a large party that was reported worldwide". That's CSD A7 material: no quantity of press clippings can turn "holding a large party" into significance or importance. But this is where the notability fetish gets us. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you may want to look at CSD A7 a bit more closely. Holding a large party that was reported worldwide is a pretty clear claim of importance. Again, whether you or I or anyone else thinks this should be genuinely important or the sort of thing we think people should be paying attention to isn't relevant. What is relevant are WP:N and associated policies and guidelines. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Last time I looked, A7 rejected any correlation between importance or significance on the one hand and notability on the other. Had it been intended for A7 to exclude articles which demonstrate notability but do not imply importance or significance, it would presumably have said so. It does not. Anyway, I'm more of a what's-the-policy bloke myself when it comes to controversy. WP:5P - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - and WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, specifically citing news reports - are policies, not mere guidelines. Because this is Wikipedia and not Wikitabloidnews, adding "references" to this sort of article does no more to make acceptable than it would do for a copyvio, an attack page, a how-to, or any other sort of material which is excluded as a matter of policy. Notability is not the be-all and end-all of inclusion, it is one small part of a much bigger picture. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so the issue is whether this falls under WP:NOTNEWS. That is not a reason for summary deletion in the middle of an AfD. Period. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• There was plenty of reason for summary deletion in the middle of the ill-advised AfD, which is strongly supported by the ArbCom decision. If the ArbCom decision doesn't matter, well why in hell should we take any interest in policy? Hell, let's run this things through AfD 20 times! Maybe you won't be convinced until this crap goes to ArbCom after all. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Interesting that at least one ArbCom member, FT2 above doesn't seem to agree with you. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Disagreements among ArbCom members is routine. What matters is whether various principles were passed as supported. FT2 does not represent the voice of ArbCom. WP:BLPUNDEL does represent the voice of ArbCom, and was passed nearly unanimously on all points. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest you reread FT2's comments above. He isn't disagreeing with BLPUNDEL but is commenting that this isn't a good use of it and is essentially a misintepretation. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• As I noted, he is NOT the voice of ArbCom. He is one person, and his posting here does not represent the position of ArbCom. His opinion has no more weight than yours or mine. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been following this discussion closely or anything, but if you are to AfD/DRV this again, remember; the press are watching. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Two points if I may:

1. I see WP:BLP1E mentioned frequently. Surely the point of this is that there shouldn't be a biographical article in addition to an article on the event, e.g. "information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself". But we don't have an article on the event, do we? Perhaps creating one would be a good way forward.
2. Closing discussions early does not seem a good way of establishing consensus. I am not much interested in Mr Worthington but am vexed by the apparent lack of due process in the latest AFD/DRV. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

Colonel Warden (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• This topic meets the plain language of notability policy. The individual continues to seek publicity and notoriety, and the media continue to give it to him. The difference between this young man and any other teen who threw a raucous party is that he has received nontrivial coverage in multiple published reliable sources. WP:BLP is a bright line test. We can't go around using it to justify deleting content where there aren't clear BLP issues. This is no shrinking violet hiding from publicity. I'm sure that teens all over the world will be wearing anoraks without shirts underneath and working on their abs. --SSBohio 17:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• As for the issue of consensus to undelete at the DRV, it seems logical that a speedy deletion is more easily overturned than an AfD. The overturn reasoning there appeared sound, and, since it's not a vote, the overturn was (IMO) justified. --SSBohio 17:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The DRV is open again if anyone cares. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, and the person who brought that DRV is now asking for another AfD. For <censored> sake when does this end????????????? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You know, I think it's time for an ArbCom case. Looking at the table I just added below the timeline at the top of this page, the amount of process warring over this has become ridiculously absurd. This has to end. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's as correct to say this ends when people stop insiting on the article's deletion as it is to say this ends when we let the article be deleted. It cuts both ways. --SSBohio 21:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, don't RFAr yet. The current DRV is going easily down the route of Delete, 16/6 at the moment, and that should hopefully be the end of it for the time being. (Who am I kidding?)Black Kite 00:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

DRVs are not votes, or have you forgotten this? Try reading my comment on that DRV and answer the question I ask. Fosnez (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I meant that the way it is going it is not going to be overturned or relisted this time. As far as I can see, your comment on both DRV basically consisted of saying "Keep, because I'm right and you're wrong". Black Kite 15:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• And now the latest DRV is closed as endorse deletion [38]. Let's hope that close ends this mess. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oink, flap, oink flap. Cynical, perhaps. Guy (Help!) 23:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Process aside, it might be worth noting that for someone who is not noteable, you can sure buy a lot of t-shirts with his face on them, including this one: http://www.bustedtees.com/shirt/sunglasses/. BustedTees is a legitimate and successful company connected to CollegeHumor, a very popular site. If he is not notable now,he certainly will be. Viral Videos have Wikipedia pages, Chocolate Rain is a good example. .. Just saying..

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.