Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 6 Deletion review archives: 2008 May May 8 >

7 May 2008[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Encyclopedia Dramatica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Yes, this may be deja vu all over again, but we got a draft of a new ED article with sources and everything up and running at User:Urban Rose/ED. Is this enough to assert notability, etc? ViperSnake151 22:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - As far as notability is concerned, I'll copy here what I posted at the DRV for ED I tried to start a few days ago:
First we will address the idea that the site is not notable. Encyclopedia Dramatica (with quotes get 152,000 Google hits. Without quotes, it gets 286,000. This contrasts with "Essjay", on which we have the article "Essjay controversy", which only gets 128,000 Google hits. "Essjay controversy" only gets 10,600. "Encyclopedia Dramatica" also ranked above "Encyclopedia Britannica" on CustomizeGoogle (a Firefox add-on) searches until it was removed from the list of searches. So notability should not be a concern. The outcome of this review will be based on whether or not the sources which cite Encyclopedia Dramatica are reliable or not. If consensus says that they're not, then there will be no reason to propose a recreation of this article unless it is mentioned in reliable sources in the future. Period. If consensus says that the sources are reliable then the article will be recreated.
This addresses the notability issue. But as I've yet to add any new sources to my draft, I don't think this review is going to go through. Though I personally think that any other article with the same amount of sources would have survived afd and that it's impossible for people to vote objectively on this (I can understand why).--Urban Rose 22:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Demetria_Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AfD 2)

This article had been up for the last 2 years. It also clearly meets or exceeds the guidelines of being included in Wikipedia. Dhartung stated that it should be deleted because "Self-published sources only" This is clearly not the case as none of the listed periodical articles are self published ones. It also clearly lists many more publications then many of the Bios on Wikipedia. Also a quick google search turns up many results ranging from the US to CH most of which are not from self sites, many of which are from published periodicals. Clearly there are as many or more results/published articles as any of the other alternative health community people that are listed on Wikepedia. -Thanks! Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. This has been deleted in two separate AfDs. The AfD was up for 5 days and there were no keep arguments. Where are these non-self published sources? The article listed a few articles she had written in minor journals and websites. --SmashvilleBONK! 17:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. No sources available on the subject. The minor list of publications that the subject has written for doesn't constitute verifiable, reliable, independent sources. You need to have things about the subject, not things by the subject. Celarnor Talk to me 17:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please keep in mind that these "minor journals" such as Midwifery Today are major publications in the field. As for things 'about' the subject, I wouldn't argue that more content could and should be added. Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Drumz, you are confusing what a person has written and published, which are always primary sources even if appearing in a reliable publication, and what secondary sources have said about a person. Simply publishing material is not by itself notability. "Self published", as your confusion indicates, is not the ideal term for this as Wikipedia usage is slightly different from mainstream usage, but we use it here as jargon for anything that is essentially relying on the subject themselves for accuracy, such as articles they publish, books they write, or interviews they give. --Dhartung | Talk 18:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to see the article and its references before making a decision. Is it possible to undelete it while this discussion is ongoing. A brief review of Google search material has yielded no sources significant enough to meet our notability criteria, but my gut feeling is that this person is notable and we can demonstrate that with proper research in off-line sources. I've had good success saving marginal articles in the past but it is a lot of work. Any time that I see a great deal of discussion about someone on the internet, I think that it is a service to our readers to answer the question, "Who is this person?" Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. When you say it was up for two years, what you mean was that you reposted it after it was re-deleted the second or third time and nobody noticed. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No when I say it was up for two years I mean - I rewrote the article after it was weekly deleted the first time, to conform with the the standards at that time, and it has been online for the last two years. Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My memory could be faulty, but I think the page was recreated several times by Drumsandspace (talk · contribs) and Drumzandspace2000 (talk · contribs) and speedily deleted just in the past couple of days. I think I noticed at while patrolling new pages, so it hasn't been up for two years, but my recollection could be wrong. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A little faulty but not too bad. What happened was that I rewrote the article around two years back after it was deleted. It pretty much sat untouched for the last two years flash forward to the other day and I noticed that it had been deleted I had a brain lapse and forgot the 2000 part of my username and in the process of trying to log in created the account drumzandspace and recreated the article. So yes I did recreate it but it also had been up for 2 years. Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closure of second AfD was correct, though I probably would've relisted it myself. Still well within the closer's discretion. Usually, it's quicker to write a new version in your userspace that meets the requirements from the AfD and ask for it to be put back in mainspace than ask for an overturn. Feel free to bring this back here after you have one. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • lifebaka Thanks for that tip I will do just that. After rewriting the article in my userspace, so that it meets the requirements where and to whom should I bring it up so that it can be put back in the main space? Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask the deleting admin or bring it back here. I'd suggest checking with the deleting admin first, and only bring it here if they refuse to allow recreation or wish to check for how the community feels about it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:AGF. He means it was up for two years prior to the AFD. As I noted in my nomination, it had an odd history in 2006 (I can't see that anymore, of course) and then was left untouched (in deletion terms) until I found it. --Dhartung | Talk 04:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment lifebaka - thanks that is what I will do. So I would say that this matter is pretty much closed, for now. Life is a bit busy for me now but I will rewrite this sometime and then bring it up to the deleting admin. Thanks to everyone who helped her. Drumzandspace2000 (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hero Certified Burgers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I was unaware of the AFD, I was not informed, please relist for AFD so that I can present a rebuttle. The reason for nomination was invalid as the claim was that there are 13 restaurants and there are now more than that. Also the number of restaurants is not a factor of notability, there could be one restaurant and still be notable. I am unable to present a full rebuttle without seeing the article. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - As the deleting admin, I've pasted the last revision of the article here for the nominator's convenience. I'll weigh in once an argument has been presented. Lara❤Love 02:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uphold per notability criteria, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability". Article is basically one paragraph and sources cited were company's own website (not independent) and two reviews from the local newspaper bordering on advertising. Correct to assert that the number of restaurant is irrelevant but that does not get over the problem of lack of multiplicity of sources. One newspaper does not satisfy that criterion. --Rodhullandemu 02:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion -- Looking at the userfied article, there are no reliable sources to verify the information. The Toronto Sun link is broken, and the final cite is just a yellow pages style directory listing. That leaves no procedural problem with the AfD close, as there are no sources to show notability at all. -- Kesh (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - our role is, as always, to decide whether the AfD was properly closed and not to re-run it. The AfD commentators considered whether the subject was notable and decided, unanimously, that it was not. On this basis there could have been no other close. BlueValour (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The problem, as I stated in the AFD, is not the number of stores, but the references. There was nothing indicating anything more than that it's a local restaurant. Compare Billy Goat Tavern, a six-store chain that is the subject of much local lore, a famed SNL sketch, and a book. --Dhartung | Talk 06:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per BlueValour. Not wanting to be rude, but it is clear in the instructions that DRV is to correct errors in process. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - there is no additional information provided to warrant a review of the debate or the article's status, in light of the concerns raised at AfD. I note that, if the restaurant's fortunes have turned for the better and their operations have expanded, then maybe an article would be acceptable - if and only if additional independent sources are available to document the facts of the article. There is no evidence to suggest that this is the case, however, and my own research turns up nit. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Nominator should be looking at his watchlist more than once every five days if he is interested in protecting his articles from AfD. That said, there's no policy-based rationale to suggest that this was an improper deletion. Consensus was clearly that the article wasn't worthy of inclusion with the available sources. Celarnor Talk to me 17:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On the one hand, there is no requirement that article creators be informed of AFDs. On the other hand, there is also no requirement that editors visit every day. I note that Popo... visits about 5-6 times a week, not quite daily. Finally, AFD is not formulated as a trial where each side presents an argument. The best argument for protecting an article is to source it impeccably to begin with. --Dhartung | Talk 19:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responses to procedural related comments -
    1. Nominator should be looking at his watchlist more than once every five days if he is interested in protecting his articles from AfD, I note that Popo... visits about 5-6 times a week, not quite daily - Response: I normally put an article on my watchlist after I created it. In this particular case, I learned after the fact official name was "Hero Certified Burgers" so I moved the article after putting it in my watchlist and assumed that the move would watchlist the new article as well. I didn't find out until Lara speedied the redirect "Hero Certified Burger" that I found out about the deletion.
    2. There is no requirement that article creators be informed of AFDs. Response: It might not be the official policy but it's considered a good practise and seeing as how I'm the creator and sole writer of the article why not just post a note to my talk page?
    3. AFD is not formulated as a trial where each side presents an argument. The best argument for protecting an article is to source it impeccably to begin with. Response: Yes it is. The Keeps and the Deletes presents an argument as to notability. It's completely open to their interpretation as to what constitutes notability. If it was as simple as you say, then we wouldn't need an AFD and it would be an easy matter to have admins speedy non notable articles after creation.
    4. there is no additional information provided to warrant a review of the debate or the article's status, in light of the concerns raised at AfD, our role is, as always, to decide whether the AfD was properly closed and not to re-run it, The AfD commentators considered whether the subject was notable and decided, unanimously, that it was not. On this basis there could have been no other close. Response: I'm not saying overturn, I saying undelete and relist or at the very least simply undelete and open up the AFD for a few more days to let a broader audience have there say. Besides myself I'd like to get Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject Toronto and perhaps get the WP:RESCUE to find any additional notable sources if they exist. It couldn't hurt and might help. Do it under WP:IAR if you like. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    5. The Toronto Sun. Response: It doesn't mean that it can't be used. Just because a source isn't online anymore doesn't mean it's invalid. The Toronto Sun is one of three major newspapers in Toronto. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • question Does someone have access to the original Toronto sun article? That might help in deciding how much of an assertion of notability was made. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to notability related comments I believe this restaurant is notable because any company that rents a cow to walk through Toronto's most notable street is notable. And this was a notable cow used in Chicago's columbus day parade. The number of restaurants is not up to date on the website and if you count the number on the side it's actually 17 not 13 locations. In addition to the sources provided, we can also add Metro News "Four beerlicious days ahead" by Ann-Marie Colacino/Metro Toronto. Metro News is part of the Toronto Star. Furthermore, this company is notable because of the uniqueness of the niche it is in (making all burgers with angus beef). Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The metro article doesn't have much coverage but the Toronto Sun piece looks substantial. The Toronto Sun also mentions that "HERO Certified Burgers opened to rave reviews"- do we have any of those reviews? I suspect that one of those together with the Toronto Sun piece would be enough to reasonably allow recreation. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There's nothing preventing you from recreating it once you've established notability. You can work on improving it in your sandbox and then move it back to the mainspace once you've expanded it with reliable sources. I would like to say, however, that I don't see how local reviews establish notability. We had a little Thai restaurant here that received rave reviews in the local newspapers, but I don't see how that makes it notable for an encyclopedic entry. Lara❤Love 13:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds good. I will work on the article with some of the sources I've found above and move it into mainspace when I'm done. If local reviews don't establish notability then I think we will be biasing our restaurant articles towards the bigger chains. I think we should have an open mind. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion The reliability of the Toronto Sun has just taken a further hit--it never had much, for its just a tabloid modelled after British tabloids, & we never count on them much for notability. Reading that "article," it's entirely an advertisement for the company. Half of it consists of quotes from the owner and the rest sounded as if he dictated it. " But, if you happen to be walking by a HERO Certified Burgers, it’s best that you stop, head on in and enjoy quality from the very first bite." is not a restaurant review, its a PR placement. There is, unfortunately, nothing more common for restaurants than to do this with local papers & tabloids &c.. And even for the Sun there is some extenuation: it was not in the regular section, but a special section on the festival, and such sections are in most cases at least half-way towards advertising. DGG (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A positive article doesn't mean that we can't use it. We have to be neutral but individual citations don't have to be neutral. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I were writing an article about a subject that I wanted to keep, I would steer clear of such obvious spam, even be it print spam. It just doesn't help an article when other sources are so thin. --Dhartung | Talk 05:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Corey Delaney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

There has been a fair bit of discussion related to this topic in the past, so please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Corey Delaney discussion before commeting here. The 4 February DRV, especially, contains a fair few sources or claims to notability, to which this DRV will add.

Since our February discussions, Delaney has continued as a well known figure in Australia. He is set to release a single, "Fight for Your Right (to Party)" (a Beastie Boys cover), and when news.com.au reported this, they also noted that "Since January, when he became either the most loved or hated party boy, Worthington hasn't stopped fielding offers for work". source Delaney also recently entered the Big Brother house in Australia, and has received significant coverage on Google News for this; see the numerous articles listed here. As well as reports on him being in the house, there have also been responses to his entry, and criticism of what this means, see for instance this AdelaideNow article.

While Delaney's notability does still stem from that party he held, I believe it has now expanded beyond WP:BLP1E, and that he is thus notable for an article here. I am happy to work on a draft article with others (I haven't had the time to do one now...) if nobody has one lying around for now.

Note: I have used the name Delaney, but there is some debate as to if he should be called Worthington...Delaney is the name I'm used to, and there should be no percieved bias (on my part) in which title is to be chosen ultimately.

dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apparently in long anticipation of this moment, JRG has maintained a draft at User:JRG/Corey Worthington. It is a bit out of date; for example it contains very little on his involvement in Big Brother, and nothing on his musical career. But it may serve to bring newcomers to this discussion up to speed on the topic, and is probably a good place to start if there is consensus to allow an article. Hesperian 01:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the assertions in that article are blatantly false, although did appear as speculation in the media (mostly News Ltd publications) at the time. Someone contacted Southern Star-Endemol and confirmed point blank that he would not be involved in hosting Big Brother, although it appears they've brought him on the show in a different capacity. Orderinchaos 08:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hesperian, I don't want to criticise, but please get your facts right before making assertions about my userfying. I wasn't waiting for the article to be re-written, I was actually going to (in good faith) put some facts on some other pages such as the Narre Warren page for the party incident (as opposed to wanting his own page). I actually thought at the time he wasn't notable for his own article, but the out-of-control party, which got unprecedented media coverage, was. JRG (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do most humbly apologise, JRG. I should not have assumed; or rather, I should have checked with you or kept my assumptions to myself. Hesperian 11:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just want to point out that I have also been involved in editing this draft article, and I have added quite a lot of current info to it. To be honest I can't stand this guy, but that is why I have been working on the article, so there is a factual representation of his actions without all the cruff that the media places on it. I can only do so much though, it needs other editors to work on it.Fosnez (talk) 08:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problem - you are forgiven. JRG (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • allow recreation I was actually going to wait a few more days before I filed this DRV myself but H20 makes essentially the case I was going to. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. If he releases a single, and it charts, then he'll pass WP:MUSIC and be worthy of an article anyway. Until then, still looks all a bit BLP1E to me. Black Kite 06:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. He is of marginal notability and there's been some serious questions as to whether he is a minor being exploited in this situation. Per "do no harm" and also WP:BLP1E, it's doubtful. Incidentally, it's been confirmed since the original coverage that his name is Worthington and always has been, but his mother's name is Delaney and that's what caused the confusion. Essentially a case of very poor fact-checking by media agencies. Orderinchaos 08:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering the continued/continuing news coverage he's getting, I would say these serious concerns about exploiting a minor have probably been diminished...at this stage, it seems fairly certain he wants/is asking for the publicity (IMO). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very reluctant restore I don't want this guy to have an article, but I think that he's now notable for more than one thing (just). The article should be carefully written though. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - let's see how he goes in Big Brother— he may gain the notoriety that some of the past contestants have and would become notable enough for an article. If not, then the current paragraph on him in the Big Brother 2008 paragraph, with the facts of the Narre Warren incident, should be fine. It's way too early in the show for us to make any judgements on this. By the way, OIC, the "serious questions" are as yet by a single person so I wouldn't make too much of it. He's on Big Brother, whether we like it or not, so he's going to get his paragraph there, own article or not. JRG (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just pointing out (as your draft references) the other assertions to notability, apart from the Big Brother appearance. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. Sceptre (talk) 10:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and see that notability is established beyond WP:BLP1E before a standalone article, obvious some detail should now be in the appropriate BB articles. When that gets to the point where a daughter article is necessary then create. Gnangarra 10:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted, being a contestant on what is essentially a game show is no more an indication of notability for Delaney than it is for anybody else. Nothing has changed in my view since the last time this was deleted. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Deleted per Orderinchaos above. Eusebeus (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Restore on the same grounds as Nick Dowling. The oneevent restriction is to prevent overemphasis on minor events in someone's life, irrelevant to any real notability, such as being caught up in a disaster or a bystander to a crime. By extension it can be used for a moderately significant event in the life of a minor, to protect him. He does not want protection--that much is obvious. So we include it. DGG (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. While pretty much everything he is notable for stems from a single event, the same could be said of many politicians who are notable for things they have done that have resulted from them being elected as politicians. I don't think this is a case of BLP1E, as the event itself is not the only thing that he is notable before. Celarnor Talk to me 17:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, as the continued media coverage means his notability has gone beyond any rational interpretation of WP:ONEEVENT. The Big Brother situation/role, in particular, seems unprecedented (correct me if I'm wrong). Certainly he was not selected through any normal contestant process and is not subject to our "only winning contestants" rule-of-thumb, he was brought in as a spoiler precisely because of his national celebrity. Voluntary participation at this level makes him, even if a minor, no different than other pop stars e.g. Jamie Lynn Spears. I have no objections to continued vigilance for BLP issues. --Dhartung | Talk 19:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Ongoing coverage from just the last few hours: [1] [2] [3] [http://top40-charts.com/news/Pop-Rock/Infamous-Party-Boy-Corey-Worthington-Releases-Debut-Single-Fight-For-Your-Right-(To-Party)/40029.html\. (Thankfully no one has yet decided to cover this discussion like they did our previous AfD and DRV). JoshuaZ (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Vapid waster. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well yes. But that has little bearing on whether he meets our article inclusion standards. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hope the Australian project keeps this and the previous debate well linked and not lost into the ether - it is a good example of how we as a project come to terms with notoriety within our little corner of the planet - it compares interestingly with some other Afd's and keeps over time - I agree with Dhartungs comments - and others that we should keep vigilance with WP:BLP1E both for keeping or deleting - so in the end I am a wait voter SatuSuro 04:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Orderinchaos's reasoning. Sarah 07:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Initially Corey was famous for one thing which in itself wasn't considered noteworthy. Whilst others notable for one sport, or one pice of music or one other thing happening have had wikipedia articles created. Corey is now a famous Australian Personality certainly there are far less well known personalities who have wiki entries and far less notable personalities. If it was just over one party we wouldn't be having this conversation now would we! Orderinchaos argument seems to contradict itself the point is HE IS A BB HOUSEMATE, HE IS FAMOUS - WE CANT ACCUSE THE MEDIA OF BEING BIASED SIMPLY BECAUSE WE DONT WANT THE GUY TO HAVE A WIKI - people use media references in wikis all the time to support their facts so Orderinchaos more or less fall flat on their face 124.171.16.116 (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - The media coverage of this person is way beyond the scope of "ONEEVENT" and there's an incorrect argument that just because this person is a musician, they must have a hit record to pass the main criteria of WP:MUSIC. People can be notable for reasons outside the "specially notability" guidelines like WP:MUSIC, WP:PROF, etc.. --Oakshade (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On what basis are you arguing to restore this article? This is not a policy forum. Orderinchaos 02:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think his comment is that complicated. The point can be interpreted two ways: first, that Worthington meets WP:BIO rather than a more specific guideline and second that even if someone doesn't meet a specific guideline we can use common sense to decide notability based on a collection of small events all of which provide reliable sources (which is essentially saying he meets WP:N). Moreover, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is relevant. Even if we didn't have a particular guideline to cover something it doesn't mean we have to establish a new guideline to include an article. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, JoshuaZ explained my comments better than I did. --Oakshade (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How is this article harmful? Below is the "inclusion test" from the policy you linked:
  • Is the information already widely known: Yes, it is already well known, check the sources on thee article.
  • Is the information definitive and factual: Yes, all claims have been backed up with sources
  • Is the information given due weight in relation to the subject's notability?: Yes, other information about him has been entered into the aricle, such has the confusion over his name etc. But it needs improvement.

Fosnez (talk) 08:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recreate - notable because of all the media coverage on him, no so much because of the oneevent! Notability is easily proved by multiple significant sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. Subject no longer meets BLP1E; continued coverage is extensive and comes from credible sources. Since article was deleted solely because of BLP1E and notability based on events rather than the one party incident is verified, there's no reason not to restore the article.--PeaceNT (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The main reason not to have an article would be because we don't want to be a tabloid encyclopedia. Sometimes things would be easier if wikipedia were paper - "Sorry, we only have room for 60 000 articles, and Corey was #60 001". Andjam (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I think the main claim to "Subject no longer meets BLP1E" stands from him being in the Big Brother House—any mention of him can begin there, in the Big Brother season X article, and then when it gets beyond stub size, brought back here. But it still seems like BLP1.5E to me right now, hence, I endorse the initial decision(s). MrPrada (talk) 04:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate Someone deleted my reason for this nomination. Oh well. Anyway his notability is easily established by his Big Brother appearance and CD release. Even if nothing else, his name should redirect to the Big Brother 2008 article. JayKeaton (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly endorse deletion/keep deleted and wait per Orderinchaos and MrPrada. The Big Brother appearance does not make Worthington any more notable than he was, as consensus is Big Brother housemates are not notable enough for an article. Even if you could piece together the notability from the party, his "music" "career" and then the Big Brother appearance, he still does not meet the encyclopedic threshold for notability. By the way, to the closer, two things to keep in mind: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary deletion of BLPs requires that "[an article deleted due to biographies of living persons concerns] must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so" - therefore, there must be a clear consensus to restore this article should you close it in that manner, and if there's no consensus the outcome must default to keep deleted; and even if this is closed as allow an article, please do not close it as "overturn" and then undelete all the revisions, but rather close it as "allow recreation" and keep the old revisions deleted (as they were deleted under the biographies of living persons policy). I believe the article should not be recreated or undeleted. Daniel (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd be interested to read this encyclopedic threshold for notability policy you seem to be quoting from, all I can find is WP:N which says: Significant coverage by multiple Reliable Secondary Sources Independent of the subject. - check the draft article for the sources, or hell, do a google news search. Fosnez (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, per Lankiveil. east.718 at 10:07, May 16, 2008
  • Endorse deletion so what if he's set to release a single that is a cover of someone else's work? Are we now going to allow every garage band onto Wikipedia because they have a single they are just about to release? I also note that not one of the big brother housemates has their own article, much less a *guest*. The people who want this article restored are grasping at straws. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentNo, but combin the with the other things he's done, and you get:
  • So yeah, he didn't just release a single.... Fosnez (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The single, if it has even been released, is of zero consequence until it hits a chart; intruders on Big Brother are not inherently notable; show me some academic coverage regarding this lad being synonymous with "Generation Z" in Australia; etc. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. He is most notable for trying to be notable; the limited success he has achieved is not worth the long term damage we do by allowing a minor of little significance to be the subject of a biography that will probably be scathing, a magnet for vandalism and an opportunity for attacks. Lets wait till he has done something of merit, or is no longer a minor, before taking that step. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - George Bush's biography could be considered to be a biography that will probably be scathing, a magnet for vandalism and an opportunity for attacks.. I would have to ask you to read the draft article and check your assertions, as I have tried to keep it NPOV as best I can. Fosnez (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    George Bush isnt a minor, and he is one of the most notable people alive. I suggest you read my opinion again in full. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status note With no prejudice to the outcome of this DRV, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 16 this title was turned into a redirect to the one article in which he is currently mentioned. The closer there explicitly notes that the closure here, if allowing an article, should overrule that action. GRBerry 13:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for copying that over, GRBerry, I forgot all about doing so :) Yes, naturally, if a DRV finds a consensus for an article to exist, that will override an editorial decision to redirect. Daniel (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted for now. This no longer strikes me as a BLP1E issue as the subject is now actively courting publicity, that said the article is likely to be a magnet for BLP projects as John points out. All in all, I am simply not convinced that this person meets our notability requirements. Per some of the comments above, lets wait to see how he does in Big Brother and how high his musical offerings chart... WjBscribe 13:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to WP:N notability is defined as: Significant coverage by multiple Reliable Secondary Sources Independent of the subject. - please check the draft article for sources, and you can see that infact it does meet WP:N
  • Endorse deletion, at least for the time being, per Orderinchaos and Black Kite.--cj | talk 11:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_7&oldid=1140157374"