- Corey Worthington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AFD1|DRV|AfD2|MfD for AfD1)
This person (also known as Corey Delaney) is all over the news and internet after holding a large party and making a number of appearances in the media which garnered a lot of reaction. The article was deleted awhile ago and I undeleted it starting from scratch, thinking he is a notable person. Another admin deleted it again 6 hours later, and I believe the re-deletion was not justified and ignored the information I put in the article about what has happened recently.
I had created the new page from scratch with something like 21 news articles from the BBC[2], International Herald Tribune[3], and major Australian newspapers, and American shows like Best Week Ever. The Times of London [4], AP [5],etc also talked about him.
I also added on a section about the aftermath and his activities after the party, which was one of the major concerns from before - his future prospects have been the subject of much media coverage - he has been "earmarked" to host the Australian Big Brother[6], he's going on an international DJ tour,[7] he's modeling in Australia[8], Ozzy Osborne was interviewed about him[9], hosting parties[10], and even smaller stuff makes the news - a contest to win his sunglasses[11], which also led to sales in those sunglasses exploding[12], he was beaten up outside a mall, which got a lot of press coverage (for example [13][14]) and when it came out that the fight might have been staged, it got more press coverage (i.e. [15]). There are tons of Facebook groups, t-shirts, etc for the guy, he's been called an "international hero"[16], "one of the world's most famous teenagers,"[17] and so on.
I would argue that he's notable not because of the party, but because of his appearances on the media, the reaction to those appearances, (such as [18][19] and even a t-shirt [20]) and what he's doing now, (TV gigs, tour etc) which to me would invalidate the argument that he is famous in connection with only one event. Even what his name is has been in the news.[21] So in short, I think he's notable, not just for one incident, and deserves a page here. It adds to the encyclopedia. AW (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn The nom makes a strong argument. This is past the point of the basic BLP1E lapplying. BLP1E does in any event have clear limits, for example we have a separate article on John Hinkley(ok, obviously more notable than Worthington/Delaney but it should get the point across). Worthington/Delaney is now highly notable per the above and many other news stories. This has been more than 15 minutes of fame. I can also provide even more sources if anyone is interested. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Amazingly, as the starter of the last AfD, I'm going to say weak overturn. You do have me convinced that this person has established some more notability than I thought before. For a precedent that is similar in its nature, see John Smeaton (baggage handler) - which I would advocate keeping.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn - I don't think we're dealing with single event anymore. The kid has made a name for himself, like it or not. - Philippe | Talk 19:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - god, this was on DRV only two weeks ago. Will (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it was, and the circumstances have changed since then. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How have they changed, it still seems like a trivia article? David D. (Talk) 19:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- David, what do you mean by a trivia article? Trivia very often seems to mean things that people aren't interested in as a topic. Frankly, I think its a pretty dumb topic myself. But our inclusion criteria aren't determined by that. Since the last DRV Worthington/Delaney has given multiple interviews, was hired to run/host large parties and was later in the news for his altercation with gang members. This is extensive enough to not reasonably fit BLP1E. If you mean something else by "trivia" it would be nice if you would define trivia in some fashion. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What i mean by trivia is the medias fascination for gossip. This seems to come into that class of "news". Where do we draw the line, this seems to be a trend that moves wikipedia more towards becoming the online version of People magazine. David D. (Talk) 19:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia covers many trivial topics but does so , or at least should do so encyclopedicly, no need for this to be any different. Benjiboi 19:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, our penumbra BLP concerns have if anything moved strongly in the other direction. Furthermore, once we start deciding that our personal views on a topic should influence whether or not it is kept then everyone will want a specific subject removed because it is trivial. I for example really detest soap operas and reality television. The only really objective standards we have are whether or not we have enough reliable sources for this. And gossip rags and such are rarely actually reliable sources. However, this has been covered in major news publications so that isn't an issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I'm not disputing the reliable sources I'm disputing the notability. It has noting to do with my personal views other than I thought our inclusion criteria were higher. David D. (Talk) 20:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn due to the substantial and ongoing news coverage information presented. R. Baley (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we now saying that substantial news coverage equates to notability? Does gossip column type coverage even count as news? David D. (Talk) 19:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We are stating that he has more than enough verifiable reliable sources surpassing notability requirements. No need to even use sources deemed merely gossip. Benjiboi 19:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, WP:N does more or less say that but even then that's not relevant. Many of these sources aren't gossip columns but major mainstream newspapers. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As we all know, even mainstream news dabbles in gossip and trivia. This alone does not make it notable, IMO. Are wikipedia's notability requirements now so low that if one appears in mainstream media that is enough? Is there not also a quality requirement? David D. (Talk) 20:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well such an appearance is not by itself enough, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E but aside from those issues WP:BIO does make it clear that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject"(wikimarkup suppressed). Now, if you want to make an argument based on either of those grounds or a general BLP penumbra ground (which seemed to be the main arguments in the previous DRV and AfD) I'd understand but he clearly does meet basic notability criteria. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Wikipedia looks foolish for not covering someone who made headlines worldwide and has become an icon to teenagers worldwide. When anyone turns to the encyclopedia that can churn out the latest Simpsons episode in hours all they find is a lengthy discussion why we're protecting a teen who's booking his own media interviews. In the few weeks of his leap to international fame he's got more RS's than a sizable portion of biographies we let gather dust. Let's get on with building that article his fragile dented ego seems to have survived intact so what little damage we're likely to inflict seems minor to what the press would have or could have done. Benjiboi 19:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn the deletion - I did not see the first article or the first AfD, but I have the impression that the second article is substantially more thoroughly developed than the first and was mislabeled when it was called a recreation of the deleted article. As I stated in the 2nd AfD, I pay little attention to "fluff" news, and I had managed to be totally unaware of this person until seeing a blue link at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biographies, which I clicked on out of curiosity. Reading the article that AW had created, I noted that (1) the article was well-documented, well-written, and informative; (2) this guy had been the subject of numerous different published articles by reliable secondary sources, so he met the primary criterion for notability; and (3) although he is notable as a result of just one event, his story has not ended there, and reporting of the story of that one event and subsequent developments is now so widespread that many previously oblivious people (like me) are likely to come to Wikipedia to try to find out who "Corey Worthington" is. Restoring the article will help Wikipedia serve the needs of users who (like myself) expect Wikipedia to answer our questions about matters of popular culture about which we were ignorant; excluding it reduces the value of Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist The new article is sufficiently different to not be a recreation of deleted material. I think that WP:BLP1E will still govern the outcome, as I am not impressed by the subsequent coverage. One article indicated that the article itself was unbalanced due to legal requirements not to publish certain aspects of the ongoing activity. The BBC article was clearly primarily a promotional puff piece by the booking agent in that country. But all of this is an issue for AFD; at DRV we should simply judge whether or not a new discussion is needed. With major differences in the article, the answer is clear to me - a new discussion is needed. GRBerry 20:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion: I don't think we should be re-hashing the same debates over and over and over again until someone gets the result they want. This kid is not notable. He's just a punk kid who got caught up in an event, and now has a job. Big whoop. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I recreated the page because more has happened since the first deletion - lots more news articles, international tour, offered to host Big Brother, etc. All of that makes him notable, not the party, in my opinion. --AW (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion: Despite the conversation above, i still see no reason to think this has passed any threshold for notability. David D. (Talk) 20:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Overturn As the editor who nominated the original Corey Delaney article for deletion when I discovered it, I'm not sure if being a model or being merely earmarked to host a show makes one noteworthy according to WP policy (I almost never nominate articles for deletion because noteworthiness is so fuzzy to me that only those that are most egregiously and blatantly non-noteworthy to me will get my attention), but given the news stories of him since the party, I conceded that he may be closer to noteworthy now. Ultimately, I defer to those with greater expertise on the noteworthiness policy and all its nuances. Nightscream (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per nominator here. Yes, there were issues but this is no longer a WP:NOT#NEWS case, the coverage has been substantial and sustained. Mangojuicetalk 21:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. I was fully in favour of the original deletion, but since then there has been a good deal of further coverage on far more than just the original issue that made Delaney famous. Quite simply, the original reasons for deletion no longer apply (and in hindsight, perhaps we shouldn't have been so hasty in deleting the article). -- ChrisO (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We use Today Tonight as a barometer for newsworthy? :| Orderinchaos 04:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - Notability has been establish by Significant coverage by multiple Reliable Secondary Sources Independent of the subject.. WP:ONEEVENT has been satisfied. Fosnez (talk) 11:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn deletion It no longer matters if he was notable enough the first time around (original article, AfD1, DRV1, etc.), as he certainly is notable enough now, based on more than sufficient reliable sources. Even if this was sparked by an otherwise non-notable one time party, WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BLP1E clearly no longer apply based on current notability. Reinstate the new article as the deletion was for recreation of deleted material, but the arguments here clearly indicate that the new article was sufficiently different, reflecting a changed situation. Deal with any issues in the AFD process, if necessary. The aggregate overturn and keep arguments seem compelling to me. — Becksguy (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - much of the coverage of him is tabloid in scope and not reliable in nature, much is speculation, and we're still talking WP:BLP1E. Those Australian editors who remember the incident involving a boy who met a woman on the internet, who have since married, that was all over the media for more than a year, or a certain family who attracted a great deal of attention a number of years ago for being unemployed and quite unwilling to change that. There is no basic change in the circumstances. Orderinchaos 14:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, the articles are from reliable sources and most are not gossipy - BBC, International Herald Tribune, Sydney Morning Herald, etc. Some are downright academic in looking at what his celebrity means, like the IHT article, saying "In the process, Worthington has become a symbol of the gulf between members of the wired, social-networking generation, who regard celebrity as an end in itself, and their parents, who see fame as a byproduct of other, worthier efforts." --AW (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Notability is certainly not a question, nor is BLP of a minor. Should have never been deleted in the first place. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 18:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Come on, this was discussed at length a mere two weeks ago and consensus was clear. Nothing has changed and any fame he may have is likely to be fleeting. The BLP issues certainly have not gone away. WP:ONEEVENT still applies as without the party nothing else he may have done would be newsworthy. A quote from another user I found particularly relevent "There is a growing group of people who are coming to the realization that Wikipedia is not always a force for good. In particular, when we record for posterity the minor details of people's lives, they have to live with a Wikipedia article coming up as the first hit on Google for the rest of their natural life. That's not necessarily fair, nor is it necessarily good for the long-term of the encyclopedia. I don't want to be involved with a project whose mission of human knowledge has been so twisted as to require us to document with meticulous detail for all eternity the lives of anyone who ever did something funny, stupid, criminal, minorly newsworthy or got converted into an Interwebs meme. ... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a permanent record of everything any person ever did that got in a newspaper." -- Mattinbgn\talk 19:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The point I'm making is that a lot has changed since then. He's still in the news for a lot of various things, has been offered to host Big Brother, doing on an international tour, etc. He's a lot more notable now than he was two weeks ago as many commenters here have noted.--AW (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Southern Star Endemol people have others lined up for the Big Brother role, so this was clearly a media flight of fancy, for the record. Orderinchaos 04:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Things widely discussed on an international basis in news sources are notable. Enough news coverage make a person no longer a private individualDGG (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. At the moment this matter has not progressed from "news" to "encyclopedic". A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability. Corey has not yet demonstrated that anyone will remember him in five years time. Let's try again after his "world party". WWGB (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. There is roughly zero chance that anyone will give a crap about this guy in six months time, let alone five years. Rebecca (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. The above endorse !votes have little or no merit due to the fact that a) most of the original nominators for deletion are sufficiently convinced enough to overturn, as above, and b) the sheer weight of the references supplied by the DRV nominator. DEVS EX MACINA pray 07:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong overturn - widely discussed in news sources, and Wikipedia is not paper so the fact it's slightly unusual as an article is not a reason to delete. If this is not overturned, some information should definitely go into the article on the suburb in which Corey's party took place. JRG (talk) 08:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - Despite my initial comments in the first AFD/DRV, I am now convinced that he has gone beyond the scope of one event. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Here is a good chunk of the coverage by the media in one convient location. Fosnez (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist. The story has gone on beyond the stage where it is 'just one event' and therefore G4 should be avoided; but I'm still not convinced about notability so deletion should be considered afresh. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion as per Rebecca and Mattinbgn. -- Chuq (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AW claims that he created this article from scratch. Here is a question for the admin who speedy deleted the article: Did you compare it to the previous deleted content to ascertain if it was "substantially the same"? If you did not compare it, please keep in mind that admins can see deleted material for a reason, and that you cannot claim G4 "recreation of deleted material" if you have not actually viewed said deleted material. If you did compare it, and it was substantially the same, then I would endorse deletion. If, however, it was not "substantially the same," or if you did not even compare it, then, regardless of the guy's notability or lack thereof, I would have to say that the deletion should be overturned and the second AFD allowed to continue its course. 206.246.160.29 (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion according to the logs User:Awiseman who signs using AW restored the article saying the subject is notable in this the deletion as a recreation is correct as AW didnt create a new article as claimed but restored the previous article. Gnangarra 00:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, even if that is the case, is that relevant? If Worthington/Delaney is now notable enough to have an article do those details matter? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- AW/Awiseman is saying that he created a new article when he actually restored the original article as the restoration of previously deleted article (due to BLP issues) and which deletion was endorsed at DRV as well, is the basis for the deletion now being questioned. It also questionable use of admin tools by AW to perform such an action claiming "the subject is notable" (without discussion) when there had been significant discussions recently as to the subjects notability where consensus was that the subject isnt notable. Gnangarra 01:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, so file an RfC against him if you disagree with his actions. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The primary issue here seems to be is Corey notable enough now that we should have an article on him. Whether AW did something wrong doesn't seem that relevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia may not be a bureaucracy, but one of the purposes of deletion review is: "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, or if the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions." There has already been a deletion review to determine if the original AFD was interpreted correctly, and the concensus was that it was - hence the article was deleted. There was an ongoing AFD for the "second/recreated(?)" article when that article was speedied as recreated material. The question this deletion review should be trying to answer is; "was that speedy deletion done outside the criteria for such deletions or not?" We should NOT be arguing here about this guy's notability or lack thereof. That is the question posed in the second AFD. If the deletion as recreated content was proper, then someone should be allowed to create a new article from scratch (literally), and we should debate THAT article in AFD. Not here. 206.246.160.29 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I find it very difficult to believe that AW's article was a copy of the article that was deleted on January 15, since most of the sources that AW cited were published after January 15. --Orlady (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn clearly notable. Gothnic (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Really, hosting television shows and parties on the level of a Paris Hilton and conducting media interviews related to the same ... doesn't sound like the average teenager jobs in any respect. Benjiboi 01:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion per Rebecca. It's still trivial tabloid news but WP:NOT#NEWS seems ever-so relevant. Try Wikinews. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion/deny recreation per above comments. By the way, two facts of process: 1) if there's no consensus to overturn, the article must be left deleted per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff; 2) even if this is overturned, it's going straight back to AfD within 24 hours, as this DRV is merely procedural to see if there's a consensus to allow recreation, which isn't the same as what AfD determines. Daniel (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- strong Endorse Just another mug who got a few media hits for misbehaving. We're not going to have an article for every guy who turns up on Today Tonight or A Current Affiar because they trashed a house, created a website encouraging people to rort the tax system Dole Army, some landlord who illegally drops into his tenant's house, some tenant who squats in a house and doesn't pay etc. People will forget this clown within a few weeks. If he does become a TV star, then he'll become notable in due time. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's still more articles recently - a TV reviewer used him to frame a review,[23] and an admittedly gossipy column says his style is being copped by a NY fashion designer.[24] My point is, it's not letting up. I saw a card at my local record store in Washington DC for a dance night with a drawing of him today. That's not a source obviously, but to me it says the guy is penetrating culture, like him or not. How many news mentions does he need before he's notable? --AW (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Is the fashion suit notable? No. Is the fact that an artist made a pic of him notable? Not by itself. Many artists do free paintings for family and friends. It's not as though the picture was a notable work of art. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said there, the picture obviously isn't a source (i.e. not notable), it's to me an example of how he's all over the place. And most of the previous news items aren't having a laugh, they're talking about what's going on. --AW (talk) 05:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
- Overturn notability well established.Sestertium (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion, WP:BLP1E, WP:TABLOID and WP:Wait until she's done something a bit more notable than have one wild party. Guy (Help!) 18:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Teen parties that go out of kilter due to open invitations is a common theme in the news and movies. I suggest that the Cory Delaney incident be included in a parts gone bad page (which I think exists, or did at one time) Geo8rge (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion, lack of sources has never been the issue here, the issue has been WP:BLP1E. As far as I can see, that is still the case. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 00:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Very Strong Overturn As an editor who has twice put up a page on this person, I have noted the following has occurrences which suggest some extreme biases at work: First time, the page was deleted within hours, before I could add the references (why not a tag about lack of references like the other thousands of other pages about topics and people that no-one's every heard of, but don't offend anyone's sense of 'good taste'?); Second time, I'd read the discussion about deletion, I'd found even more references, including the ones in the national media about WP deleting these articles - (aha! there is something at stake here I thought, the significance is clear if there are such diametriucally opposed views and the pages are going up and coming down with such speed - this fact in and of itself is part of its significance) - and so I carefully constructed an article that stated very clearly the significance of the subject beyond his mere notability (which is a no-brainer), and provided an extensive list of only the reliable sources (ABC News online Australia, BBC News online, Sydney Morning Herald, The Times online, The Age, The Australian, The Guardian online). Within a day, the article was deleted, with an unsubstantiated assertion that the significance of the subject had not been stated. There had been a few entries on the discussion page, but this deletion occurred without going through AfD of anything. So, I have to ask, What is going on here? it looks like there is a lot of kneejerk reaction happening on the part of those at WP empowered to use the deletion tools. Is this a good look for WP? What does it say about the validity of all those policies and processes that have been set up to democratise the creation of this encyclopedia? Surely, the article should be re-instated immediately, and the arguments for its deletion or otherwise can be allowed to run their course in full public view, along with enabling the continuous input of those editors who wish to improve the article at the same time. As it is, a number of editors who have acted in good faith have effectlively been silenced by editors with the power to arbitrarily delete on the basis of a set of values which are highly debateable, and certainly not consistently applied anywhere in WP. Eyedubya (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Wikipedia is not a tabloid, the news is going to stop caring about this kid in a week or so, WP:BLP1E still applies. Mr.Z-man 01:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOT#NEWS, etc, much in the same way that this incident was front-page news less than a year ago, yet I suspect that even UK editors have completely forgotten about it by now. Black Kite 01:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the link - it makes a very pertinent comparison: while the incident itself has some superficial similarities (party got out of hand), no-one is identified, the damage was private. However the significance of the Worthington case is that a) an individual has been identified; b) The damage was of a far more public nature, and therefore of public interest; c) the matter was not subject to media interest in the same way as Worthington has been, nor was it the subject of such fierce disagreement on WP that was picked up by the media. If the issue is WP:BLP, then let the merits of whether or not it meets the relevant criteria for BLP be discussed, rather than confusing the issue. Eyedubya (talk) 03:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion Andy Warhol said everyone would be famous for 15 minutes. I'd say the 1r5 minutes were up and we need enduring evidence of long term notability. Spartaz Humbug! 08:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
