Mangojuice (talk | contribs) |
adding corey worthington |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE with the format: {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=PAGE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~ --> |
Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE with the format: {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=PAGE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~ --> |
||
====[[:Corey Worthington]]==== |
|||
:{{la|Corey Worthington}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/Corey Worthington|restore]]<tt>|</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Corey Worthington}} cache]</span><tt>|</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Worthington|AfD]]<tt>)</tt> |
|||
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 [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Worthington|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[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7206686.stm], International Herald Tribune[http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/28/asia/party.php], and major Australian newspapers, and American shows like [[Best Week Ever]]. The Times of London [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article3198418.ece], AP [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22649300/],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 (TV series)|Big Brother]][http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23063147-2,00.html], he's going on an international DJ tour,[http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23117655-5012980,00.html] he's modeling in Australia[http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/party-animal-headed-for-the-catwalk/2008/02/02/1201801098908.html], [[Ozzy Osborne]] was interviewed about him[http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23077282-2,00.html], hosting parties[http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23064389-2862,00.html], and even smaller stuff makes the news - a contest to win his sunglasses[http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23064389-2862,00.html], which also led to sales in those sunglasses exploding[http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/02/02/1201801096810.html], he was beaten up outside a mall, which got a lot of press coverage (for example [http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23133204-661,00.html][http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=373153]) and when it came out that the fight might have been staged, it got more press coverage (i.e. [http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/corey-attack-video-staged-probe/2008/02/01/1201800998338.html]). There are tons of Facebook groups, t-shirts, etc for the guy, he's been called an "international hero"[http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/reality-tv-version-of-neighbours-an-instant-hit/2008/01/15/1200159449366.html], "one of the world's most famous teenagers,"[http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/28/asia/party.php] 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 [http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/reality-tv-version-of-neighbours-an-instant-hit/2008/01/15/1200159449366.html][http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23080926-5000107,00.html] and even a t-shirt [http://www.bustedtees.com/shirt/sunglasses/male]) 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.[http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23129271-5007132,00.html] So in short, I think he's notable, not just for one incident, and deserves a page here. It adds to the encyclopedia. [[User:Awiseman|AW]] ([[User talk:Awiseman|talk]]) 19:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
====[[:List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"]]==== |
====[[:List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"]]==== |
||
:{{la|List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"|restore]]<tt>|</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"}} cache]</span><tt>|</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"|AfD]]<tt>)</tt> |
:{{la|List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"|restore]]<tt>|</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"}} cache]</span><tt>|</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"|AfD]]<tt>)</tt> |
Revision as of 19:11, 4 February 2008
4 February 2008
Corey Worthington
- Corey Worthington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
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[1], International Herald Tribune[2], and major Australian newspapers, and American shows like Best Week Ever. The Times of London [3], AP [4],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[5], he's going on an international DJ tour,[6] he's modeling in Australia[7], Ozzy Osborne was interviewed about him[8], hosting parties[9], and even smaller stuff makes the news - a contest to win his sunglasses[10], which also led to sales in those sunglasses exploding[11], he was beaten up outside a mall, which got a lot of press coverage (for example [12][13]) and when it came out that the fight might have been staged, it got more press coverage (i.e. [14]). There are tons of Facebook groups, t-shirts, etc for the guy, he's been called an "international hero"[15], "one of the world's most famous teenagers,"[16] 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 [17][18] and even a t-shirt [19]) 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.[20] 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)
List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"
- List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
If you look through the votes, many of the votes have poor reasons to keep, and nearly all the keep votes were shown to be ignoring wikipedia policy and precedent. RogueNinjatalk 18:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Kingdom Bound
- Kingdom Bound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Page was deleted via PROD, with the reason stated "This is pure advertisement and PR" on the deletion log. I would like to improve the article and attempt to fix any of the advert and "PR" problems with said article. I'm requesting that the content of the page just prior to its deletion be restored in my userspace, as well (if possible) any pertinent discussion which existed further explaining its reason for deletion so that I may use that to improve the article. →ClarkCTTalk @ 17:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The New Regime
- The New Regime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Now confirmed on myspace.com/thenewregime as a solo project from Ilan Rubin of Lostprophets, therefore associating it with an undeniably notable band U-Mos (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Restore as redirect to Ilan Rubin per WP:BAND ("note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such."). пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Meredith Emerson
- Meredith Emerson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Notable enough, the focus of national press and ongoing investigation of the murderer, who is likely a serial killer. Should be speedily undeleted and moved to Murder of Meredith Emerson. Does not fulfill WP:BLP1E because well referenced. See also User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP 3sides (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion The rationale for deletion was not WP:BLP1E. It was WP:N and WP:NOT. The references listed all mentioned her tangentially; she happened to be the victim of a crime. She is so unknown that there is no way to create an article with sufficient fullness (read encyclopedic content) to ever be more than sub-stub. JERRY talk contribs 12:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Overturn and move as suggested. There has been continuing coverage since then, and since the event will go to trial, there will be more. DGG (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Undelete as Murder of Meredith Emerson per nom & DGG. From the debate, I saw a reasonable consensus that we shouldn't have a biography on Meredith Emerson, but not a consensus that the murder itself doesn't qualify for coverage. (I wouldn't really call that "overturning" the decision, though.) Mangojuicetalk 18:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps a redirect to the section on the Murder in the Murderer's article? That seems to be the precedent that I have seen and which I have used in the ones that I have written. Unless the victim of the crime was notable, and the murder is just another encyclopedic fact in thier life, creating an article about them saying when and where they were born, what sports they played in school, and their fasvorite flavor of ice cream just to then say they had their head chopped off or whatever, does not seem right. The murder itself may be notable, if the national headlines read Murder of Meredith Emerson shocks community or Suspect apprehended in Murder of Meredith Emerson. But all too often it's more like Joey Jojo Jabadoo was apprehended for Murder yesterday -- oh, and the victim's name was jenny foo. JERRY talk contribs 18:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- weak overturn and move as per Jerry and DGG. I agree with the basic point although I do have some reservations in general about making articles about criminal victims. (I'm also not sure I understand why precisely the nominator references my thoughts on the matter,especially since a more or less valid AfD did occur). JoshuaZ (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Simon Dodsworth
- Simon Dodsworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
No consensus. On argument against this article was the use of primary sources. But these were published sources, not eye-witness accounts etc., and Wikipedia's guideline is that Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source (which these have) may be used in Wikipedia. (Moreover, many modern newspaper reports might be considered primary sources and newspapers' reliability is not always good. ie: "Titanic sinks - passengers saved!") Please see the Keep comments on the AfD discussion page. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion The rationale for deletion was not that the article used primary sources. These of course are allowed, as you pointed out. It was deleted for the lack of availability of secondary sources covering the subject, suggesting strongly that it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In other words, non-notable per WP:N. The closing administrator in determining rough consensus is required to give little or no weighting to "keep" !votes that do not cite a valid policy/ guideline/ precedent or otherwise explain a valid point for keeping the article. My read on this AfD is that the closing administrator got it right. JERRY talk contribs 12:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment:Well, Jerry, just looking at your last 50 edits it looks as though deletions are your big thing. This article could have been further researched in secondary sources had the chance been given to editors to do so. As it were, it hardly had a look in before it was attacked by the deletionist brigade. I would also point out that the guidelines you refer to are just that guidelines only. They are "not set in stone". If someone were entirely non-notable they would not appear in anything. That was not the case here. David Lauder (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- OK, but also please look at the closing decisions on those that I close: first several going backward in time: relist - keep - speedy keep - delete - relist - keep - keep - merge... I don't think there is a precedent for me being a deletionist, per se. In fact most real deletionists would probably blow a gasket to see ME referred to as one. They often get upset with me for closing their AfD's as keep or for my participation in their high school AfD's. (Although I have deleted over 400 things a week since being administrator, so.... I can see how it might look a little bit that way.) JERRY talk contribs 18:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- endorse covered only in primary sources, none of which specified anything particularly notable: routine military service and court appearances. Such data is available for figures who have never done anything else in countries with well-preserved records.. Sometimes they are used by historians as the basis for their further research, and then they can become notable. This guy hasn't been. The WP article was a perfectly good piece of basic historical OR, but that's not what WP does. David, first find the secondary sources, and then bring the deletion review. I'm somewhat more of a inclusionist than Jerry, but I think Jerry-- and Tim, who closed this one-- habitually close AfDs in an objective way in accordance with the consensus as shown--as Tim did here. The deletion rationale was obvious from the discussion. DGG (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- endorse this is primarily a notability issue. While wiki is not paper I think there still needs to be a threshold. I think it is reasonable to have a secondary source as mentioned by DGG above. David D. (Talk) 15:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Discussion below from Tim Vickers talk page.
My comment: four versus three, without any serious consideration of the academic (as versus the dogmatic) comments, constitutes an absolute for deletion of an article? What a pity people like yourself couldn't put your efforts into creative rather than destructive work. More and more people on Wikipedia need to assume good faith towards other users - you know, like the fellow who commenced that article, don't you think? David Lauder (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- If this article is acceptable for wikipedia what is to stop every geneologist to upload their files here? David D. (Talk) 21:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- "Every genealogist" is not proposing that so you digress. Lets face it, what is to stop every stupid pop star or skateboard rider who has ever got a mention somewhere having an article on Wikipedia? Could one ask: did you manage to read the Keep comments, or did you find them worthless? David Lauder (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- You say that ""Every genealogist" is not proposing that so you digress" but the point is that it sets up the precedent. And I agree, wikipedia should not have every "stupid pop star or skateboard rider". Another example of a bad precedent.
- As for the keep arguments. I did not find them worthless but I found them less than convincing. Was there some specific plan you had for this article. for example, what will be linking to it, is it part of a planned series? Or will it just stand alone as an orphan? David D. (Talk) 15:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I did not write it so trying to remember exact content is not easy, but I seem to recall that both his children and grandchildren were quite notable, one of them being a Judge of Admiralty and another a noted Yorkshire poet. I thought this was a relatively interesting article for the century concerned and that was why I ploughed in and tidied it up. David Lauder (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I just checked and his son was Matthew Dodsworth, whose son was Roger Dodsworth. The latter is certainly a good article for wikipedia, but even the Matthew Dodsworth one seems a little light. Being the grandfather of Roger Dodsworth seems to be the chain that has led to Simon Dodsworth's article being created and does not appear to justify inclusion. If this kind of exercise in geneology is worthwhile then I would say keep but I think this is a bad precedent. A potential solution might be to write a geneology section in the Roger Dodsworth article to include both Matthew and Simon? David D. (Talk) 17:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. While primary sources are certainly acceptable for backing up claims in Wikipdia articles, they are not sufficient to establish that a topic is notable. Mostly, to see that a topic is notable we need to see independent, secondary sources on the topic. Lacking that, it at least needs to be clear that the topic is important enough that such sources exist, even if they haven't been shown to us. The former hasn't happened, and the latter hasn't happened either (and if it could happen, the AfD debate would have been the time). Mangojuicetalk 19:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Sheraton Cadwell
- Sheraton Cadwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
UNDELETE_Notability Bydesignonly (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above username is the name of a webdesign company in Canada. All the articles created by that account are promotional articles for organizations in Canada...with websites created by "Bydesignonly". The above user stated: Did you not find our submissions written "in an objective and unbiased style"? Note our. This is a promotional account for a company which is using Wikipedia to further advertise its clients. IrishGuy talk 04:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion and block the nominator as a role account. --Coredesat 05:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion and block the nominator for persistent vandalism. --3sides (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion and IP block nominator for persistent spam by WP:ROLE. JERRY talk contribs 12:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Claim to notability:
A quick search on Google (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=sheraton+cadwell&btnG=Search) displays about 10 pages of references to "Sheraton Cadwell", including the many CD albums the musical organisation has released with its various orchestras.
In addition, the article has been re-edited, with external links removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bydesignonly (talk • contribs) 14:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)