Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chuq (talk | contribs) at 06:42, 16 January 2008 ({{high-traffic}} notice). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was expedited delete due to a clear consensus that this does not meet the encyclopedic standard for inclusion related to people notable for one event, and the fact that care for the subject must be considered (and hence this decision should be made as soon as consensus is clear). Please note that, due to the torrid amount of vandalism in the last hour from accounts and IP's, I'm adding this to a protected titles list to prevent recreation. Daniel (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Delaney

Corey Delaney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article is about some kid in Australia who threw a party that ended up in a riot that caused thousands of dollars in damage. This is does not merit a Wikipedia article. The rationale given in the Edit Summary that accompanied the article's creation says "Notability established via coverage by multiple reliable secondary soruces". Those sources merely establish the facts in the article. They do not establish notability. This is a minor news flap at best. Nightscream (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per reasons given above. Nightscream (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Falls in the same category as other news items of short-term interest which won't be remembered 50 years from now. The references are broad, which I appreciate, but it's still not particularly notable. Tijuana Brass (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - however speaking/writing as an Australian - can people outside this country actually tell what is important in another person's culture and then make the rules about deletion? This could grow as big as the Bus Uncle or the Star Wars Kid who knows? - it certainly resonates with teens out here and quite a lot of people think he is funny and cheeky - and his advice to other teens when asked by the reporter what would he say to other kids having a home alone party "get me to run it" neatly overturns the powerbase of tabloid television so please think twice about deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bebe Jumeau (talk • contribs) 09:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, people in other countries can evaluate notability of Australians, as their ability to do so is predicated on their understanding of WP policy, not nationality (or nationalism, for that matter). No disrespect intended, but none of your arguments establish Delaney's notability, and if he becomes as notable as the Star Wars Kid, then he can merit an article. This is at best a WikiNews article. Nightscream (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From the Notability Policy - A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Therefore, with the sources from News.com.au, Reuters, CNN, BBC and the Guardian, I think we can presume that topic in question is notable. As an editor has noted above, he made world headlines, therefore that also established notability, but contry to editors next sentance (no offence intended) Notability is not temporary. Regarding the suggestion of recentism, I respectfully suggest the edits concerned with this have a re-read of Recentism#Debate_over_recentism where it basically says that the article should be left to develop for a while. It also goes onto explain some good reasons why recentism isn't as bad a some people may think (As long as there are sources to back to the claims made in the article). I don't think a nomination of an article after 35 minutes that so clearly passes WP:N is the correct move, but as the article author (full disclosure etc) I suppose my opinion may be biased in this area, but think about it won't you? Fosnez (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just over two years ago, an Australian made world headlines when he was feared missing during Hurricane Katrina. He was eventually located serving time in a jail someplace in Louisiana for public drunkenness [1]. Another notable Aussie idiot / legend? Possibly... Worthy of an article in Wikipedia? No. -- Longhair\talk 10:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment was the "Aussie idiot" covered by the likes of News.com.au, Reuters, CNN, BBC and the Guardian? I think not. A similar controversy existed over another one of my articles, Chris_Crocker_(Internet_celebrity), that is similar to this. The AfD was closed with no concencus, but with the number of sources on the article now it is clearly notable and would be kept if AfDed again (IMHO). I appeal to readers of the AfD to consider if 35 minutes is an acceptable time for an article to be allowed to grow - heck, I am the only non-spammy contributer to the article at this time. Leave it for a month and see how it is after that. I have added some content to the article refering to the posibility that this event may cause a change in some laws/policies in Victoria, and it would be important for Wikipedia to capture the context of the driving forces behind these changes. Fosnez (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:ONEEVENT also seems relevant to this discussion, and strongly discourages the creation of articles on people who only recieved press coverage for a single event. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wikinews. Taemyr (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it fair on a 16 year old child to create a Wikipedia article on him about something that he may look back on and regret?. Consider a future employer googling his name and seeing his moment of madness preserved on Wikipedia. WP:BLP has a presumption in favour of privacy and while the subject appears to be courting publicity, this will likely change as he begins to realise the consequences of his acts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid and editors should remember their ethical obligations when writing about children, even if the press do not. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I agree with you to an extent, as the anon below pointed out, there are going to be many articles on him, I would have thought that a (somewhat) guaranteed neutral article on wikipedia would be a good thing... at least it would only contain facts. Fosnez (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Think about it... If an employer googles his name, he will find plenty of articles in global media archives about him anyway, so just because wikipedia has an article about him, it won't change his employment prospects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.172.233 (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Of course, the hypothetical was only one of the potential privacy issues this article raises. I would also respectfully suggest that as a project we are aiming at a higher ethical standard than the press and wire services, all attempting to meet deadlines and generate content. His police record disappears at 18, this article won't. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Respectfully, at least in Australia, employers cannot access your police record without your concent. This is going to be on the internet forever. Fosnez (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's hardly expansive, and doesn't really have anything to do with WP notability. Nightscream (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, after watching him on ACA, I want to get drunk with him and punch him in the face at the same time. But he's just a flash in the pan, if he comes up with any more mildly amusing idiotic stunts, and gets press coverage for them, then he might be considered notable. But not yet. Lankiveil (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment Flash in a pan or not, Notability is not temporary, the fact that he was on ACA helps to reinforce his notability. Fosnez (talk) 11:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ACA runs stories on obese kids, primary school bullies and the fad diet of the week. None of them are notable as anything other than a tabloid story. The more I think about it, the more I feel his article is a terrible idea. -- Mattinbgn\talk
  • Childhood obesity is defiantly notable, as is Bullying. The ACA would used as a source to those article, unless the "obese kids" or "primary school bullies" received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as this guy has, then they would not be notable, but it would appear according to Wikipedia Policy this topic is. Fosnez (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non event. He's a dickhead kid. We don't write articles about every dickhead kid, even the ones who have been on ACA. I know a guy who has been on ACA 4 times, I don't create an article about him. -- Chuq (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment but we do write articles on topics that are notable, and according to wikipedia policy as I have linked to above, this topic is notable due to its coverage by the sources in the article. Fosnez (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Durova's dead trees policy and a slight adaptation, the almost absolute certainty that when that tree which is yet to be planted is duly cut down, this guy won't have his name printed on the resulting paper. He's a complete non entity. Nick (talk) 11:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I haven't read this particular wikipedia policy, could you please provide a link? Even before reading it however, I am tempted to say WP:NOTPAPER. Fosnez (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I've never heard of this kid though his story sounds very similar to one that made the news in a big way last year first link I could find. This girl doesn't have an article despite being more famous: this kind of story probally wasn't even worth mentioning on wikipedia news let alone having a article made on the central person of the event. It just makes the news to play on parental fears over myspace. The only place I see for this is perhaps a section of the myspace article or a article on reactions to myspace which mentions this kid and Rachel.--Him and a dog 13:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notable for a single event (so far) which means it fails our BLP criteria per WP:ONEEVENT, which aims to allow people who blunder their way onto the front page to escape the limelight if they want - the front page of the newspaper ends up in the library archives, almost inaccessible - Wikipedia pages do not, so greater care is needed before they are created. Also, the event only just happened which means media reports about this are not reliable sources. Besides that, no attempt is made to establish why this is notable. Parties like this are not unique; $20,000 worth of damage is horrible, but hardly the most expensive damage bill; 500 attendees might be setting new boundaries if they were all from myspace, but the facts about how he attracted them all have not been investigated and reported in depth, so the figures we are hearing on the news are probably simplified in order to arrive at a BIGNUMBER that catches everyones attention and generates dinner table conversation. John Vandenberg (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Corey_Delaney&oldid=184677492"