Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 13

Hakka-Pac (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I made some changes to the article between the time deletion was proposed and when it was carried out. I believe these changes address the deletion criteria, in particular notability and secondary references. Also, note that the voting consisted of one 'Keep' and one 'Delete' - not a particularly strong consensus. Chewyrunt (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

as he is still "currently working on his first studio album," I doubt that there is any point in reviewing the article.DGG (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

He has however put out several EPs with other notable artists. Note that there are now four wikipedia articles with red links for Hakka Pac. In any case, I will drop the issue for now. Chewyrunt (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by Radio Philippines Network (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was closed as defaulting to keep. All of the the keep !votes clearly lacked solidly in any policy or precedent, but rather were explicitly Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The closing rational seems seriously flawed. WP:V or WP:OR played no role in this discussion, yet they were seemingly given comparitvely more weight than the "applicable oficial policy" for which the article was nominated. WP:NOT#DIR (3) criteria states Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide ...and use explicity as an example " radio station generally should not list...current schedules, etc...". Despite the solid policy based rationale for deletion, the closing admin dismisses official Wikipedia policy stating "The WP:NOT#DIR criteria can be debated for years without results and it can be subjected to various interpretations'. I've broken down on the AFD's talk page the raw analysis, and would recomend either a Relist or Overturn and Delete. Hu12 (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Endorse the basic argument was that general programming information about networks was acceptable, and always has been. The program guides prohibited are specific program schedules of individual stations.DGG (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse, an electronic program guide would be a list of on-air schedules, which this article isn't. There's really nothing wrong with the closer's interpretation of the policy you list, and therefore there's not much fault with the close. - Bobet 16:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, as per Bobet. --Howard the Duck 17:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse No consensus seems to be correct interpetation of the debate. Do not see that the list meets WP:NOT#DIR so cannot see how the closer could have ignored the keep opinions. Davewild (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse my closure The main argument for deletion is WP:NOT#DIR and I can hardly see how it fits with the article myself. The fact wether the article passes or fails WP:NOT#DIR is simply not made very explicit, and I fail to see any connections that would stand out to me. Therefore, I do not find the argument convincing at all. I also did not see how this article is an electronic programming guide, and how it would be, it is simply a list. In this case I guess it could argued that this close is also somewhat boardering no consensus, and it could be another possible option for this AfD. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 19:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Perhaps then, where no consensus exists (supported here and in the raw analysis), implementing the use of Template:Relist {{:Template:Relist}} would have been the apropriate administrative action in order to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may (infact) be reached.--Hu12 (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yasumicon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Prodded and contested after deletion. I am unsure what the reason behind the prod was, but this can be determined upon undeletion. If deletion is still deemed necessary, the page can be VfD'd as necessary. Thank you. tgies (talk) 08:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Undelete procedurally as contested prod, but there's no way this would pass AfD as written: it's an unreferenced stub about a con organised by a school anime club. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Right. I have no idea whatsoever about the content of the article — I am requesting its undeletion on behalf of someone else — but I suspected that it possibly had some notability problems. The party requesting undeletion claims to be able to provide evidence of notability, so the article should be undeleted per standard procedure and sent to AfD if it proves problematic. Cheers. tgies (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Undelete as a contested prod. I don't see this surviving AFD, but that is beyond the scope of this DRV. It is a contested prod, and it doesn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria, so it should be undeleted. Aecis^Brievenbus 18:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Corey Worthington (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Subject is proven notable by massive news coverage. Article is not a BLP issue as it only repeats what has already been widely reported in the mainstream news media. If specific parts are BLP issues, then those parts can easily be rewritten, edited, or trimmed to make it compliant, but the vast majority of this is perfectly fine. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Note to who ever closes this DRV, remember to look at the original DRV too, there are a lot of comments there from users who may well not see this new DRV.

• Endorse and Speedy Close. Can we stop going round and round and round with this? It's had 3 AfDs and 3 DRVs in less than a month. --Smashville^BONK! 04:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Care to give a reason for your endorse !vote?Fosnez (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. It's not nice to call people names unless there is incredibly good reason to do so. I don't care if there are cites or not, seems like a clear cut case of violating WP:BLP when an article does that. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  The names you say were in news articles from reliable sources, and part of the basic reason for his notability, I think, is the strong reactions people have to the guy. If you really wanted to, why not take out the names themselves and say something like "the such and such paper and the so and so TV news did not support his behavior" or something and link to the articles. But I think without the negative stuff, of which there is plenty in the news, the article would be too far biased in favor of him - stuff like him being called a "hero," without the other side. I don't want to get into this too much though, I'm kind of sick of arguing about it other than I think it should be an article. --AW (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  Ironically, you do realise you've just undercut the entire notion of these being reliable and independent sources, when you note that the sources have a 'tude all their own and call the guy names. It really doesn't make us look good when we start copying them in doing so just because we can - we're not monkey see, monkey do, and I'm sure the Britannica wouldn't for a moment entertain such treatment. Orderinchaos 08:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  There are something like 300 news articles on the guy, including opinion columns. Some were in favor, some weren't, and the vast majority were just on the phenomenon --AW (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please see my comment towards the bottom of this discussion for ONEEVENT and Notability concerns Fosnez (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion This has got to come to a close soon. Massive news coverage is an exaggeration, massive self-promotion after a a bare 15 minutes of fame is more like it. Wikipedia as a project needs to improve the way it deals with WP:BLP issues and with some luck this may be the spark that starts this improvement, so in some ways this may all have been beneficial to the project. The drama surrounding this article is hopefully a cautionary tale to editors to consider these issues in the future. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and speedy close per BLP. Sarah 06:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please see my comment towards the bottom of this discussion for ONEEVENT and Notability concerns Fosnez (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. All of the valid reasons have been stated many, many times. Instant celebrity is not notability. He will be forgotten in a few months, then we are stuck with an article about a person (and an event) with no lasting significance. How about waiting six months before re-submitting, then see if anyone cares. WWGB (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Notability is not temporary, and according to notability guidelines, he is notable. Please see my comment towards the bottom of this discussion for ONEEVENT and Notability concerns Fosnez (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - non-notable nobody. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please see my comment towards the bottom of this discussion for ONEEVENT and Notability concerns Fosnez (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The community was properly addressing this article, which had been returned to it after DRV failed to establish a consensus to support a BLP summary deletion, at AfD when the article was speedied. A discussion about the propriety of that speedying, and more broadly about the underlying procedural issues, has been proceeding at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Corey Delaney discussion, and there is, it is fair to say, a good deal of support there for relisting, such that there is likely soon to be a consensus there for the addressing of the issue at a new AfD at which all relevant issues might be considered by the community. I rather think, then, that a DRV isn't appropriate at the moment (although I, of course, think the most recent deletion to be altogether contrary to policy and, in any event, decidedly unhelpful [why the community discussion oughtn't to have continued is beyond me], for reasons that I need not to set out at present [but that FT2 sets out, in part, at the AN subpage, quite well]), as I think we might do well to reserve hope that broad support for a re-running of the AfD (to be, ideally, a final, at least until further information should become available, discussion about the article) might be established. Joe 07:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse and speedy close - enough is enough. - 52 Pickup ^(deal) 07:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is not a vote, please give a reason for your endores. Fosnez (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion We've been through this process several times now, and each time it's clear that this boy does not meet the criteria at WP:BLP. I hope that this is the end of this matter. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The thing is that we haven't really been through this process fully, at least relative to new information that was raised at the (most recent) DRV (namely, that there may be other undertakings for which the subject might be notable and that his being public is no longer avolitional), because the most recent AfD was cut short/circumvented. What is clear is that there exists considerable disagreement about whether BLP merits deletion here and about whether the subject is notable. Where an article has been been summarily deleted per BLP and where a consensus is not borne out to sustain that deletion, persistent misunderstandings of BLP and the Bdj RfAr notwithstanding (we have repeatedly rejected, after all, the reversal of the presumption relative to BLPs considered for deletion as against keeping; we default, relative to BLPs as to anything else, to keep), it is appropriate that the issue be considered at AfD (in similar situations in the past, AfDs have sometimes been undertaken with the underlying article undeleted but blanked, which I suppose would have been fine here as well), and it has yet really to be considered at AfD. We create so much trouble for ourselves in situations like this when we repeatedly foreclose discussions prematurely, and we have seen again and again that once deletion discussions are permitted to run their course and properly visited by the community, most everyone, and certainly almost everyone who edits in good faith, is satisfied, even if the disposition is contrary to his !vote, and we would do well to remember that here. I would, then, once more, urge everyone to read FT2's summary of the matter and his attendant suggestions at the AN/Delaney thread, with the hope that we might, either here or at the AN thread, decide properly and once more to list this at AfD, in order that the issue might, for now, be definitively resolved. Joe 07:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Seriously, enough is enough. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 07:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please give a reason for your !vote. Fosnez (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - This endless run of process is getting tedious. There has to be a point at which it comes to a close. Endorse Mattinbgn's comments in particular. Orderinchaos 07:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn The discussion was closed after two days not five and there was no consensus justifying WP:SNOW. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• overturn This is a bit long, so I apologize in advance for the length:

We should have a full AfD of this topic. There's no compelling reason not to have a full AfD when his name is plastered all over the news and the reason we've had so many separate discussions is because of the number of out of process attempts to close things early. At least one member of the ArbCom has expressed that this speedy deletion was not the sort intended by WP:BLPUNDEL. Since I'm not as eloquent a writer I will simply refer to what he said, quoting a large part. [1].

As FT2 observes in the above dif, BLP is "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." I strongly recommend that everyone read the entirety of FT2's comment.

While deletions have been done before for privacy reasons, we cannot reasonably expect their to be such serious privacy concerns when a) the individual in question has made international news and b) is busy self-promoting himself. The claim that the individual is a minor should not also matter; his legal guardians are apparently fine with all the publicity.

I also strongly recommend that everyone read User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP especially the first part which discusses why we should in general use AfDs to determine community consensus about BLPs that are well-sourced.

Finally, I note that even in the last few hours, Delaney/Worthington has appeared in three more news sources, over a month after the initial event. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Delete, haven't we made Wikipedia enough of a laughing stock already? Enough is enough, delete per the same arguments made at the previous 3,000 (it feels like) debates. This isn't a process, this is just disruption now. Black Kite 15:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It seems to me to be a bit unfair to accuse people of disruption when all they want is a full discussion on the merits rather than repeated out of process deletions. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Should be noted the last DRV was a no consensus, and was closed keep out-of-process (as a no consensus at DRV defaults delete). Orderinchaos 15:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, apparently the closer thought there was enough agreement to relist. Maybe you should discuss it with him? JoshuaZ (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Bit late for that now, isn't it? It was sent straight to an AfD which closed delete, which I was satisfied with as an outcome, which then came straight back here, which I voted on, which closed. For some reason it got unclosed yesterday without anyone being notified, so now we're here. This will close no consensus, which defaults delete. Some end-runner will most likely then either try to recreate the article under an implausible name, or try another DRV to test the community's patience. At which point I will be warning for disruption and asking ArbCom to resolve the matter. Orderinchaos 01:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
          • It was reopened because apparently Coredesat thought that it might make sense to not speedy close this DRV. In any event, I agree that if this DRV closes as keep deleted then further recreation would be disruptive barring a change in circumstances. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • BlackKite, haven't these repeated attempts to delete this article been what has made Wikipedia enough of a laughing stock already? We've even received press coveragwe of our multiple attempts to remove a well-sourced, referenced, biography of an individual who meets the core test of notability. He has had nontrivial coverage in mutiple reliable sources. It's frankly exposing us to ridicule that we can't follow policy and respect process in our zeal to excise this article. If, in the fullness of time, he proves nonnotable, it's not as if the delete button will cease to work in the meantime. But, right now, he meets our test, a test upheld by community consensus. --SSBohio 17:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Um, no, it's the repeated attempts to recreate it after it was completely correctly deleted under BLP the first time that are causing problems, not to mention the fact that at least two of them - the re-creation as Corey Worthington and the closing of the 58th (or whatever it was) DRV as re-list - have been out of process. Black Kite 19:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Um, what? Just because a DRV closes in a way you don't like doesn't make it out of process. The DRV was validly closed as relist. Even some of the people such as David who were in favor of not having an article agreed that relisting wasn't unreasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Yeah, oddly when a DRV finishes as no consensus (which this one plainly was - there were very few votes for relist), you sort of expect the article to stay deleted. Perhaps it's just me. I notice you don't comment on the outrageous end-run round deletion and salting that was the Corey Worthington re-creation? Black Kite 15:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endore Deletion Per Orderinchaos. Twenty Years 15:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion already and speedy close this ridiculous demonstration of wiki<censored>. When is someone going to start up Wikipedia:Restoration review? I'd like to submit this four times there <cough> <cough>. This article had it's chance in the sun. It failed. Miserably. Doing the DRV over and over and over and over again to keep making attempts to get a different answer is a complete end-run of process here. Nothing's changed here. He has his 15 minutes of fame, for which an article was created. It was deleted, DRV'd and endorsed as close. People attempt to make claims about "oh he got a job!" Well guess what? He's not notable for his job yet. Appearing on Big Brother? He hasn't appeared yet. Going on a world tour? He's not set one foot on that tour yet. Wikipedia is is not a crystal ball and we shouldn't be creating articles on FUTURE notability. Nothing he has done has even been remotely notable except for his tangential involvement in a party gone bad. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - To me, WP:BLP is satisfied, the "negative" parts are from news articles, and there are just as many positive ones. If people are concerned about "bad" names, like editorials saying "moron" and "brat," then take the words out and just say "other news articles have been opposed to his acts" or something. Don't delete the whole article. Otherwise, he's all over the news, Youtube videos with 800,000 views, hundreds of Facebook groups, etc. There were two articles about him not getting a Wikipedia page even, the first time it was deleted, and one yesterday. To me, if something is newsworthy enough to get two articles written about getting or not he's getting a Wikipedia page, it's pretty newsworthy. I feel like a lot of these arguments against are Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT --AW (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I see a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and not many good reasons to endorse the deletion. Consensus does not equal a majority vote so just saying "endorse deletion" and then ranting about how wikipedia is "a laughingstock" and accusing other of disruption is not good enough, according to the rules of consensus. Consensus needs to be reached here by discussion, not by speedily closing DRVs. Multiple reliable sources clearly establish both WP:V and WP:N. This won't stop being controversial, so in the spirit of Wikipedia, perhaps a full and proper AFD is in order. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  Great! Then we can DRV that three times too. The silliness has to end. Reality; he got in the news for ONE event. That fails our policies. Since then, he's done nothing of note. There's potential for FUTURE notability, but none as yet. I fail to see what the keepers (who are doing just as much WP:ILIKEIT by the way) are so afraid of that they can't wait a few months and see if he's truly notable for more than one event. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, there is definitely a visible pushiness which is difficult to comprehend. Orderinchaos 17:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  As usual, I disagree about the one event, I've argued that he's notable not because of the party but because of all the reactions pro and con, and how news commentators are using the kid to demonstrate the power of the internet, text messaging, young peoples' ideas of fame versus adults, etc. He wouldn't be in the news still if he hadn't touched a nerve somehow - just some kid with a party otherwise. And I don't see any "like it" votes either, most are "this kid's notability is established by x y and z", not "this kid rules!!!"--AW (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  How many is enough? I don't think any set of articles except maybe Daniel Brandt's has been through more processes than this one. The last DRV was not speedy closed, although it was closed incorrectly. I think the next stage is probably ArbCom, and with the Foundation taking a strong line on BLP lately, I think some of those who have seriously been abusing the community's consideration in recent days/weeks by repeatedly end-running process should be regarded as disruptive and dealt with accordingly. It is time for this nonsense to end, it is taking all of us away from building an encyclopaedia and indulging thoroughly pointless drama. Orderinchaos 17:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  I think it's time for ArbCom now too. If this DRV ends with the article being restored, even the bringer of this DRV is saying there should be yet another AfD. There's already been 4. This silliness has to end. It's time for ArbCom. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  To be honest, I was done with this until the second AfD and DRV were closed too rapidly/incorrectly. At least let the discussion finish. If the page remains deleted after a fair discussion, then fine. --AW (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  Incidentally, you are aware there is no specific time limit for DRV unlike AfD etc? Most get closed within the day, a few last longer. Orderinchaos 17:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  My reasoning behind the DRV has nothing to do with ILIKEIT, I don't even know who this person is. It has everything to do with following procedure. Out of process closures and speedies fly in the face of common sense and guidelines. Notability is established by multiple independent reliable sources. At most, the article should be retitled to the event itself. I also agree with the points made by AW above. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  There are multiple people, myself included that feel the opposite; the article was restored out of process and against consensus. Thus one of my reasons why this needs to go to ArbCom. Neither side is going to be satisfied. You think it's our process in favor of keeping, and others think it's out of process in favor of deletion. Arbitration. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  If whatever is decided here goes through correctly and follows process, I'm down the decision. I think we should give this some time though. --AW (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  It's already long past that. This hasn't followed process for weeks now. If this DRV results in restoration, there will just be another AfD. Regardless of that outcome, there'll be another DRV. There's not a single argument anyone's putting forward now that hasn't already been aired out multiple times. It's not about Corey anymore. It's about the absurdly ridiculous mockery of process that this has become. That's why ArbCom needs to step in now. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn - A number of the deletionist arguments have at their heart that Worthington shouldn't be as notable as he is, not that he actually isn't notable. I'd like to see a reasoned denial of his notability, preferably supported by fvactual argument. The keepers have provided factual references to establish their case. If deletion is really warranted, then those who want that outcome are obliged to do likewise and lay out their facts. --SSBohio 17:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  Hardly. It's that he's notable for just one event, and one event only. Nobody is really denying he's not notable, just that he's not notable outside of one event. Having an article on him thus fails WP:BLP1E. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  As noted earlier, he's also notable for the ongoing discussion about him, the event, and related topics in the news. His event provoked these other "events" (debates and discussions). Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  Precisely. The notability descends from one event. If he'd been involved in a gang fight, and had not gotten into the news because of the party gone bad, do you think he'd have made the news? If he'd been contacted by Big Brother for potential work and had not gotten into the news because of the party gone bad, do you think he'd have made the news? If he'd made a claim of embarking on a world tour, and had not gotten into the news because of a party gone bad, do you think he'd have made the news? The answer to all of these is "Of course not". He's notable only for the one event, and everything else is because of it. It's not like he's hosted some famous party or become a regular on Big Brother. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  But this sort of thing has happened many times before without much hullabaloo - kids having parties. But kids having parties almost never generates this much press coverage - he's become an internet (and media) celebrity. There's something else at work here. --AW (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  Then give it time to brew. There's too much recentism going on here. Revisit in a few months, and if he's notable for other things then there won't be any contestation to him having an article. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The claim that BLP1E is relevant here is not one that obviously has consensus and is not one that justifies by itself close of the AfD. Let's have a full length AfD and see if the community thinks that BLP1E applies in this instance. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Why? So we can have a 4th DRV and then a 6th AFD and then a 5th DRV and then a 7th AFD and then...? Quoting WP:BLPUNDEL "The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy." You've not been able to achieve consensus that WP:BLP1E does not apply. Therefore, fail. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Very nice, except that as I and FT2 already observed BLP1E isn't a situation that generally triggers speedy deletions per BLPUNDEL. The situations we do that in are serious privacy violations or requested deletions or possible defamatory statements. BLP1E is not by itself enough to just BLPUNDEL being invoked. So let's have our debate already. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
        • We've already had our debate, across 10 deletions, 2 restorations, 4 AfDs, and 3 DRVs. There's no new arguments coming out anymore. All this is is repetitive spin, spin, spin debating that achieves nothing. What's the objection to waiting a few months to see if he becomes notable for something other than having a party that went bad? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Again, a charming claim except that the last DRV ended with the closer opening a new AfD. That AfD has not been completed. (Oh and this ignores the fact that that the main reason for that DRV was that there were many more sources since the previous one). JoshuaZ (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
            • All part of how process has been badly abused in this twisted tale. Time for ArbCom. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
              • I'm confused. So because people in favor of deletion have abused process we need to try to go to the ArbCom (which doesn't generally decide content matters anyways) and have to keep it deleted? Can you explain that in more detail? JoshuaZ (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
                • This isn't a content matter anymore. As I've noted, there's no new arguments regarding keeping/deleting this article anymore. It's all been said, it's all been argued. What is happening now is that the process has come apart at the seams. We've had 4 AfDs. 3 DRVs, 10 deletions, 2 restorations, and when this DRV concludes there'll be another AfD (if it concludes to overturn). At some point, this has to end. We can't keep flip-flopping back and forth from DRV to AFD. This isn't a rationale process anymore. That's where ArbCom can step in. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
                  • On the contrary, there's nothing wrong with having another AfD to actually try to determine what the community consensus is. Indeed, the previous AfD was doing a decent job of that just fine until the speedy deletion. And this simply isn't in the ArbCom's purview; the default when the community has disagreements isn't to run to the ArbCom. It is to talk and to try and reach a consensus. To do that we need an AfD that is actually allowed to go the full length. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
                    • The first AfD was 18-2 to delete, and it was speedy deleted due to WP:BLP concerns. The resulting 3 day DRV was 48-12 to endorse deletion. As someone else noted, DRVs are frequently closed after one day. There already was a proper process to delete the article, and the subsequent DRV upheld that process. The restoration of the article by a single admin and the resulting never-ending spin cycle has resulted in no consensus to restore. And here we continue to argue about process. This is a realm that ArbCom works in. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
                      • Right, those are two discussions that occured prior to the vast majority of news sources about the matter. Heck, I would have probably argued for deletion in the first AfD if I had had the chance. The relevant discussions which you don't mention include the previous DRV which had a majority favoring either overturning completely or relisting for a full AfD to discuss the new sources. An AfD which has still not occurred in full. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
                        • The second DRV did indeed have a majority, but barely...it was NOT consensus to overturn at 22-18. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
                          • Except for the fact that some people promintently involved in the discussion agreed that it "might be a good idea" to actually have the full AfD. And that 22-18 is still a majority for undeletion. Indeed, it wasn't undeleted but rather relisted for AfD. Not an unreasonable result when there is a slight majority favoring undeletion or reexamination. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • (reracking indent)
  • This is a content question, a realm which ArbCom routinely declines to engage in. --SSBohio 18:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, it's a behaviour question. i.e. considering whether gaming process repeatedly in this fashion (esp regarding a BLP) is disruptive behaviour or not. It would be an interesting case, as it's not an issue that often comes up. Orderinchaos 01:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • The disruptive behavior I see is the deletionists' effort to do an end run around consensus-building processes such as AfD? The current subject of a contentious AfD, having had one speedy deletion overturned already, is not a candidate for another speedy deletion while the AfD is still ongoing. What do we have to fear from listening to the community to determine consensus? --SSBohio 07:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• • BLP1E talks about whether to have a separate biography aside from the article on the event, not about whether to have any article at all.
  • As for BLPUNDEL, it's been long-established that ArbCom doesn't make policy, the community does. ArbCom gave an opinion in one case, it didn't issue papal bull for all to hear and obey.
  • To assert that a speedy deletion can't be put to a consensus test because the admin who did it cites BLP is to assert that one editor can overrule the rest of the community. It sets up a situation where no editor, no administrator, no one can review the deletion and revert it.
  • For example: Why was the article deleted? It violated BLP. What about it violated BLP? I can't tell you, per BLP. What if I disagree with your assessment? You still can't do anything about it.
  • If no one can see for themselves what the egregious BLP violation is, and no one who can see the deleted article is allowed to reverse the deletion, then we're at the mercy of whichever gunslinger is quickest to pull the trigger & delete. Whatever that system is, it's not a community and it's not consensus-building. It's high time we started acting as a neutral reporter of fact rather than as a nanny to this or any other wayward teen. Deleting this article was (literally) ridiculous. --SSBohio 18:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, speedy close We've had this debate, what, 4 times or so in about a month? If certain people *still* don't think that's good enough, voting on it one more time is hardly likely to convince them, and there's no particular reason to imagine they'd be satisfied if we debated it 10 times, or 20 times, or 1000 times either. Anybody who's still not satisfied, sorry, but we've given this issue al the time and attention it reasonably deserves. It's time to go back to building an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• • The only reason we've had it repeatedly is because of repeated out of process attempts to close it. The last AfD, started due to the previous DRV which came to the conclusion that another AfD was in order, was going strong when the AfD was closed and the article deleted. Let's have a full dicussion. Arguments of the form "I'm sick of discussing this, let's endorse" should not be taken seriously. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
    • As I noted above, there are people (myself included) that the restoration of this article and the resulting DRV /AFD/ DRV / AFD / DRV / AFD lanther-rinse-repeat cycle has been completely out of process. That's why ArbCom needs to step in now. This isn't a debate about Corey anymore. It's an argument about process. DRV/AFD is not the place for that kind of hand wringing. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Have you already filed the RfAr? It's just as easy to make a case that it's the pro-deletion side who have thwarted consensus at AfD and attempted to force a deletion despite having been rebuffed at DRV. Process is important and we can all stand to reduce confusion by following policy. --SSBohio 07:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Overturn -- quoting this excerpt from the final version of the article:

Since his news appearances, Worthington has hired an agent,^[2] and has gone into party promoting,^[3] going on an international DJ tour^[4] including stops at British resorts Brighton, Torquay, and Blackpool.^[5] He has also been "earmarked" to host the Big Brother television series on Network Ten in Australia,^[6] signed a deal with Zoo Weekly which could be worth up to A$10,000, has signed a deal to host a party called "Not So Narre",^[7] and has been offered a deal to run underage clubs.^[8] He gave his sunglasses to Zoo Weekly who are holding a contest for them, calling them "most famous item of clothing in Australian history."^[9]

Comments:

1. BLP concerns -- we've received no complaints. Meanwhile, the subject's gone and hired an agent and is promoting his own notoriety.
2. One-time event -- clearly this person is continuing to stay in the news.
3. Verifiability -- check the citations this one paragraph carried -- they're from Australia's leading newspapers.
4. Wikipedia is Not a Nanny -- it's not our place to worry about positive role models for the world's teenagers.

--A. B. ^(talk) 18:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Is he notable for hosting "Not So Narre"? No. Is he notable for doing something for Zoo Weekly? No. Is he notable for running underage clubs? No. Is he notable for being on Big Brother? No. Is he notable for his world tour? No. Why? Because NONE OF THESE THINGS HAVE HAPPENED YET and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The sunglasses being notable might be worthy of mention along the lines of seeing the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich, but doesn't make Corey notable beyond a single event. Neither does hiring an agent. Or, should we include articles on every person who hires an agent? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally Southern Star Endemol have explicitly ruled out Corey as a host, and they have major concerns about the news reporting to date. This was reported as a "fact" above from a supposedly reliable source. How many others of the above are completely false? Orderinchaos 04:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL doesn't say what you seem to think it does. The primary rule about it is "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented" Again, this isn't a single event that we are talking about. It is the totality of events surrounding Delaney. (As a point of fact most people who are notable are notable for a series of events that are somewhat related.) And again, this isn't that relevant to why we are here. This isn't the location where anyone needs to show compelling reason that he is notable, the only case that needs to be made here is that there is enough reason to find him notable that we should have the AfD. Given that the previous DRV closed allowing such an AfD and given that the closer specifically stated that that AfD should not be speedy closed it is hard for me see how that burden has not been met. The additonal coverage given by A.B and others is simply gravy. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

YES, he is notable for Not So Narre, Zoo Weekly, etc. NOTABILITY IS ESTABLISHED BY INDEPENDENT RELIABLE SOURCES which have been provided, not by people sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "HE'S NOT NOTABLE". Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the compliment! It's been a while since someone personally attacked me] by saying I'm sticking my fingers in my ears. Cool! --Hammersoft (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think that was directed at you. Other people said just that though. You're actually debating, which I think we all appreciate. --AW (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment -- recent ongoing press coverage (just a sample from a longer list):

• 11 Feb: "Corey kicked off Wikipedia a second time"
• 11 Feb: "Why the letter 'i' will define this decade" -- passing mention, but interesting:

"So it could be the Wikidecade, or the decade of Google, but I'm pushing the iDecade because "I" also stands for the Middle Eastern nation whose plight proves superstition is still the world's top cause of murder; and ego, which is how Britney and Big Brother gave rise to the phenomenon that is Corey Worthington worship."

"Oh hell, let's call it the decade of Corey."

• 12 Feb: "Courtney Does Corey":

  "Entertainer Courtney Act put her feather boa up last week and took on the persona of party boy Corey Worthington…"

• 12 Feb: "Tony Abbott has a Corey moment":

"FORMER federal health minister Tony Abbott has had his own "Corey Worthington" moment after police were called to shut down his daughter's 15th birthday party"

--A. B. ^(talk) 18:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think you've just proved your own point - none of those four articles are acutally about Corey himself, they just reference him in the context of his party. Black Kite 19:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• On the contrary, the first one is primarily about Worthington albeit in the context of his Wikipedia article, the second one is a columnist focusing mainly on him, the next two are more passing mentions, but mentions that show that the readers will be assumed to know who Delaney/Worthington is. If that's not a sign of notability I'm not sure what is. And again, this is only a subset of all those that have shown up in the last few days. And more are still coming. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, WP:BLP1E per MZMcBride, Black Kite et al, and not forgetting WP:NOT#NEWS. Come back next year and then we'll know whether he was important or significant. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Per the notability guidelines, he is notable now, and notability is not temporary. Please see my comment towards the bottom of this discussion for ONEEVENT and Notability concerns Fosnez (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Did I mention the notability guideline? BLP and NOT#NEWS are policy - NOT comes straight out of Wikipedia:Five pillars. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, for all the reason i have discussed in other AfD's and other DRV's. He is not notable yet, despite many secondary sources. Notability for an encyclopedia is not about quantity but quality. That NEWS happens to find this guy a fun fluff n'stuff item is not particularly notable and certainly not encyclopedic, even if wikipedia is "not paper". Revaluate when we know the real fallout from this case, not all these projections for TV shows and European tours. David D. (Talk) 20:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please see my comment towards the bottom of this discussion for ONEEVENT and Notability concerns Fosnez (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn. Having closed a previous DRV as keep-deleted, I reflected on the arguments then versus the arguments now. The arguments for keeping deleted were stronger then than they are now. This is why I strongly endorse Trialsanderrors's closure of the past DRV as overturn. Yes, we need consensus to overturn BLPs. Yes, the vote count was close, but the arguments for keeping deleted were ridiculously petulant and had a let's-stick-our-fingers-in-our-ears quality to them that completely ignored the facts of the case that this individual was indeed notable for more than just one event now. So what if the latter events that he is notable for stem from one event alone? Nearly every famous and notable individual has one precipitating event that led to his or her fame. If Britney Spears hadn't been cast as a Mousketeer would we have an article on Wikipedia about her? Do we go about shouting "ZOMG!!! WP:BLP#1E!!!" when talking about her? No, obviously not. I'm not saying that Corey Worthington is as notable as Britney Spears, I'm just saying that lots of you are ignoring the evidence of his notability. Also, this individual is no shrinking violet. Yes, some individuals (we all know who they are) don't want a Wikipedia biography on themselves (I think it's also interesting that major media outlets didn't pick up the story when we agonized over Brandt/Beasley/Finkelstein et al.), but there is no evidence he is one of them. Insulting language on the page? Did you people ever hear of being bold and removing it? Age? Although it does raise a few concerns, it is mostly a red herring (see also) to induce moral panic. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Is Spears only known for being a Mousketeer? She may attract similar fluff NEWS but there the comparison ends. NEWS should not define notability. David D. (Talk) 22:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion -- Avi (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • For any reason? --SSBohio 07:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, as per the last six AFDs/DRVs. (Get the hint?) -- Chuq (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • An interesting claim given that the last AfD when it was closed wasn't exactly very pro-deletion, the previous DRV closed in favor of a new AfD and the closer of the first DRV has above agreed that the circumstances are substantially different than they were at that point. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
    • You're correct. It was "no consensus". There was neither a consensus to restore nor to delete. When a discussion results in no consensus, the default decision is status quo - which at DRV is delete. Orderinchaos 04:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Apparently the closer disagreed with you so about how to intrepret the DRV. At minimum, the notion of saying "per the last six AfDs/DRVs" is a bit misleading. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Put it this way - I've had to post this comment on six separate occasions in six separate discussions. -- Chuq (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
          • You also deleted every other reference to him in Wikipedia - A Current Affair, Leila McKinnon, etc. --AW (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
            • And why would that be a problem? What possible reason could there be for his story to be lifted above all the others and mentioned on those two pages? David D. (Talk) 22:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - per User:A. B. - commonly referenced in the media - happy to reconsider in 6 months if still notable but unfortuantely in this day and age celebrity kind of grows a life of its own even if for nothing useful. Notability does not equal worthiness even if it might = Worthington ;-) . Not the same amount of hype as the Runaway bride case but in some ways similar for this part of the world. --Matilda ^talk 04:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion -- Yes, let's see if he's still "notable" 6 months from now. -- Retarius | Talk 05:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Based on your rationale above, do you support restoring the article since he's notable, then nominating it for deletion in six months when you presume he will no longer be notable? Your comment supports overturning as much as it supports deletion. --SSBohio 07:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't consider that he is notable now or is ever likely to be, hence the inverted commas around notable. If you measure the significance of this episode in its social and historical context, it has no more than other such instances of "parties out of control" which have occurred in various Australian cities over the past 15 years. Several outbreaks of party mayhem of similar or worse degree in Perth, Western Australia have received national media attention including television coverage and some of the juicier TV pictures of rioting even made it onto foreign media. A few years ago there was a feature article in The Australian about them in which the party boys were interviewed and had their photos published. I can't remember their names (nor could I care less) but I could dig the story up and give them a place of honour on this site if you like. Do you really want to fill this site with the antics of trivial louts who should be allowed to disappear once the slow news week is over? Retarius | Talk 02:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn For various reasons:

• A STUPID amount of "Endorse Deletion" !votes for all the afd's and drv's have been WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Users !voting in the next series of debates then build on these invalid !votes and say "the last DRV was closed with 14 Endorse votes" and use that as a precedent to argue for the deletion of the article. Prior AFDs and DRVs should not be considered when arguing or closing current ones.
• People have been saying that he is not notable. Please read WP:N again:

• Significant coverage by multiple Reliable Secondary Sources Independent of the subject. here are just a few sources: ( [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] Many more )
• Notability criteria has been satisfied

• People have been saying "He does not sadisfy WP:ONEEVENT"

• There have been several events (I have gotten them all from the same website so that there are no "dups"):
• The original party, January 14
• Deletion of first wikipedia article, January 16
• Family not liable for $20,000 worth of damage, January 16
• Corey is a genius?, January 17
• Web turns on Corey, January 17
• Ozzy Osbourne gives Corey party advise, January 20
• Australia's Paris Hilton, January 24
• Hired has party promoter, January 24
• Death Threats, January 25
• Parents cash in on Corey's notability, January 25
• Corey Bashed at mall, January 30
• Bashing may have been a hoax, January 31
• Deletion of second wikipedia article, February 13
• ONEEVENT Has been satisfied

• People have been saying "Lets see if he is more notable/still notable is 6 months"

• Notability is not Temporary and according to the above points, he is notable now.

I am sure there will be arguments posted in response and under this one, but before you do, think about why you are posting, because you don't like the fact that he is famous? That you don't think he deserves an article? That you don't like him in general? None of these are valid reasons for deletion. I have addressed the valid concerns about his article above, if you can post a policy below as to why he should NOT have an article, please do. Do NOT however, bitch about WP:N or WP:ONEEVENT as you can plainly see above, these are not valid arguments. With respect - Fosnez (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here Fosnez, on the grounds that these are not separate events. The party is one thing, and the rest of it is just speculation that he might do this or that. Pretty much everything in the list you provided to "debunk" the WP:ONEEVENT stuff is just flow-on from the original event. Plus, I'm sort of worried about the possible implication that getting your article deleted on Wikipedia is grounds for notability! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC).

I was thinking the same thing. All of these "events" would not exist without the party. It is the sole foundation on which the others are built. Take out the party, and none of the others would have ever happened. So I believe that he is still WP:ONEEVENT. WWGB (talk) 04:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. It's a news story, not a biography. One event. Wikinews is the place for this, if anywhere. Guy (Help!) 07:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's both, Guy. The person and he event are inextricably intertwined. Both have received nontrivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. It should probably have coverage in WikiNews, but it should be covered by the encyclopedia, as well, since it meets the plain-language standard for inclusion. --SSBohio 07:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - With respect for what's been said above, and with a past keep argument. I just think we should 1) End this, and 2) Let this go. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)—Voted twice. Man this is long... dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 01:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - We can't write a biography on him because we only know about him in the context of a single news event and a bunch of stupid tabloid press resulting from it. A tabloid magazine calling his sunglasses "the most famous piece of clothing in Australian history" is patently obvious hype, not substantive evidence of long-term public interest. There is no deadline on Wikipedia, and if it turns out this is more than a 15-minutes-of-Interwebs-fame deal, we can write an article on him then, dispassionately and with appropriately-broad scope and sourcing. FCYTravis (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion We still aren't Newspedia. The proverbial 15 minutes of fame just doesn't cut it for an article, no matter how many news sources cover it and no matter how eloquently they cover the event. If it is enough, then something is wrong with our criteria and they're clearly overbroad. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedily endorse deletion - for God's sake, the moment you aren't able to count the number of deletion debates in a month over a single article on one hand, it gets insanely disruptive. Will ^(talk) 14:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That's as applicable as to say: for God's sake, the moment you aren't able to count the number of deletion debates in a month over a single article on one hand, it gets insanely disruptive for deletion advocates to repeatedly press for deletion and repeatedly interfere with the building of consensus by closing discussion too quickly. It does, indeed, take two to tango. Criticism of how we got to this point does not, in itself, endorse either overturning or deletion. --SSBohio 18:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  No, but the fact it has been deleted and upheld so many times makes this disruptive. Will ^(talk) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

  Except that the last time it was on DRV it was overturned. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  Out of process - no consensus defaults to the status quo. Will ^(talk) 15:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  Maybe no consensus by vote-counting, but if you look at the arguments, BLP#1E clearly no longer applies. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  Not clearly - the DRV was pretty much over whether BLP1E applies to the subject. Will ^(talk) 19:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  Well, the issue was whether it made sense to have another AfD to determine that. A majority of people did and the closing admin though there arguments were strong enough to justify that AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion, how many times does this have to be raised? The article was properly deleted as per WP:BLP1E. The consistency of these reviews are starting to approach WP:POINT, in my mind. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC).

  No, it wasn't. Read the comments by Fosnez above. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  Should be noted Fosnez was the creator of the original article back in January. Orderinchaos 07:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  Yes I was, but precisely what has that got to do with anything? My argument should be read and contemplated based on its merit alone. Fosnez (talk) 08:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  Please see my reply to Fosnez's comment above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC).

• Comment can people please be a bit more civil? On both sides there are well-established people who want to make wikipedia a great encyclopedia. I don't want the equivalent of "Kick the ass of anyone who DRVs Corey before 2009" Andjam (talk) 04:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion The coverage of Corey appears to still be mainly based on the initial event so support keeping deleted based on WP:BLP1E at the moment. The coverage that has been pointed to by those who support overturning still appears centred on the one event and we should not have an article on Corey based on that one event. If significant coverage in reliable sources continues in a few months and that coverage is not based on the original event then I would say we would have to have an article on him then. Please let this discussion last the five days so it can be clearly shown that all evidence has been discussed and a decision reached by the community. This can then be the final discussion of this article unless/until significant new evidence is brought forward. Davewild (talk) 13:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. This probably wouldn't be possible, but if there's any way of contacting Corey Delaney and asking him whether he wants a Wikipedia article about him to exist or not, then that would be the best way of overcoming any BLP concerns.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you really think that Corey the media tart would say no? Anyway, as a minor, his position would have no standing. WWGB (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

His parents' attitude might. But I could plausibly see people as arguing that they've been so delinquent at this point that their opinion shouldn't matter much (and I'd be inclined to agree). JoshuaZ (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the repeated discussions that he doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, that would run into problems under Wikipedia:Autobiography. --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, the concerns about him being a minor are no longer a problem, as he is pimping himself to anyone who wants to create a spectacle, however we are not myspace - we do not need to continue covering this guy until he does something significant with his life. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn I agree with the reasoning that notability is satisfied. It's really as simple as that; he's not notable for a good reason, but he's received extensive news coverage so, whether we like it or not, he fits the definition. Furthermore, I do agree with the argument that, since there have been four creation-speedy cycles thus far, there is no consensus to delete, and therefore that the article deserves an AfD rather than a speedy. --Stlemur (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The article has been AfDed three times already, and was deleted on each occasion. --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• • The last AfD wasn't closed as delete. The article was deleted in the middle of that AfD by an admin citing BLPUNDEL. The delete didn't even bother closing the AfD. The AfD was then closed as moot due to that deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment re BLP1E - The problem is that we're trying to use BLP1E to answer a different question than it is written for. It speaks to the question of whether a person notable for a single event should have a separate biography, not whether there should be an article at all. We have other policies for that, and this subject meets them. --SSBohio 07:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong overturn - subject is still receiving media attention as has been shown above. Notability guidelines are subjective after all according to one's own opinion so endless quoting of "BLP" by those above isn't going to help anyone. If editors put more effort into article editing instead of bleating on about notability policies a lot more editing would be done. Anyway, what about WP:NOT#PAPER|Wikipedia is not paper]]? There is room for unusual articles like this. The mere fact that this article has generated so much debate here should be evidence enough of the worth of keeping the article. Failing this being overturned, however, please Userfy so I can insert some of the material into an appropriate article (like the suburb area or something like it) as it would be a complete waste just to delete all this article after the work put into it. JRG (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Seattle Sockeye (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Please restore, article was put up for prod, but already survived an Afd here