Talk:Willy's Chocolate Experience

I suggest this be proposed for deletion.

It was a one-off event that went badly, probably just like any number of others. No-one will remember it in a year. David G (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It meets the necessary diversity and depth of press coverage for Wikipedia:Notability (events), with in-depth articles from around the world. The ongoing duration of that coverage remains to be seen, but That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable. Belbury (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

This "event" was covered by CNN, the NYT, Hollywood Trades and even top news magazines here in Germany (Stern) making it a world story. I can already guarantee you that 2024 retrospectives will feature it in the same way the Fyre Festival was. Especially due to its connection to AI art/scripts and its copyright-violating nature. The is far more than a meme of the week. 2A00:1F:8700:7B01:E4:CF82:B3AF:6478 (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, maybe in a year it would fall flat on it's face trying to make a case that it was sustained past the first two weeks, but saying either way now would be speculation. It's had international coverage significant coverage as the IP editor above noted, and the coverage has definitely been in-depth enough. Shaws username . talk . 03:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@DavidCWG this is iconic David, it's now a meme. So it stays 173.27.192.174 (talk) 05:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Not that many people seem to care. Mike Allen 21:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Not relevant. The key criterion for keeping articles is notability, not popularity of a topic. Cortador (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I know that. I was responding to the IP that inserted it was iconic and now a meme. Thanks. Mike Allen 11:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree it should be proposed for deletion ASAP. A news story about a substandard children's event doesn't warrant a standalone article, particularly as nothing of particular note took place other than widespread giggling on social media.

Notability (events) - 'Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance.' Elisha'o'Mine (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

That guideline goes on to say However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable.

We're currently in the zone where the event seems to tick all the boxes for notability except "further coverage", so a deletion discussion will just be people disagreeing over their speculation of what might happen in the future. Let's not improvise with that non-existent vacuum cleaner. Belbury (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I cannot believe this conversation is even taking place. Trigger-happy some?! I suggest you all take a step back and think about what “notability” means in normal everyday language. If this event is not 100% notable, I don’t know what is. Stop the deletionism!! — Timwi (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Refund policy

Although the official website for the event stated that tickets were "not refundable", the event's Facebook page claimed to be offering refunds...

The first half of that is sourced to the website itself. The article shouldn't get into this without secondary sources commenting on it, it may be the case that the website said something else (or nothing at all) back when people were buying their tickets. Belbury (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Ahh thanks, I'll try to remember that in the future. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 15:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

House of Illuminati

The website of the "company" behind this event has some notable problems. Should that be added to this entry or should I create an entry for the company? Charlottebyrd (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I set that up as a redirect yesterday so I'll weigh in. I don't think it's worth it for the "company" having a separate article, as this one-time event seems to be the only thing to come out of the name House of Illuminati. I do, however, think it deserves a mention here along with the "event" website, as Coull's other worthless endeavors are also mentioned in the Background section. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 18:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, it should all be on this page unless Coull and House of Illuminati continue with something entirely different and somehow make a career out of this JamJamSvn (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

so would Billy Coull also redirect to this page? 104.7.152.180 (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Intellectual Property Infringement

Willy Wonka isn't in the public domain, so isn't this event as breach of intellectual property theft? -- [[user:Matt.whitby]] (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't personally say so, and neither I think have any current sources which is really the main thing when adding such content. They changed enough about the whole event to make it vaguely related to the magic of Willy Wonka, while not actually committing copyright or IP infringement, much akin to a cheap knockoff. Emphasis, of course, on the "cheap" part of that. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 16:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe so. The experience itself was called Willy's chocolate experience, and the name willy isn't copyrighted. The 'plot' of the experience bears no resemblance to the original plot of the book/s. Sebimus (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Chocolate claim

In the Event section: "Contrary to the event's title and publicity stating that there would be "chocolate fountains", it featured no actual chocolate"

While there are citations for this, it doesn't appear to be true, at least not for all visitors. At 2:26 at https://www.tiktok.com/@jojorobertson7/video/7340763091077958945 or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Bh-m4xa4XI&t=572s if you'd rather visit YouTube (warning: commentary channel) there is a small chocolate fountain. Clearly this is still a sad event but that is chocolate (at least, I'd hope it is) at the end of the day. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's an absolutely titchy thing but I guess it's true, they had a chocolate fountain. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 14:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

This was being sourced from two interview quotes from Connell (By the way, there was no chocolate at the chocolate factory. and No chocolate at the chocolate experience. There was supposed to be a chocolate fountain somewhere but I never saw it.) but written up as fact in the Wikipedia article. Doesn't seem worth documenting that Connell personally failed to notice any chocolate fountains, so I've removed it. Belbury (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Police closure?

Event closed down early by police due to fears of a brawl was added to the infobox today without citing a specific source, but the idea that the police actively closed the event down isn't currently supported anywhere in the article text, so I've removed it.

I did read one news article that specifically said the opposite, that after speaking to people the police decided there was nothing to be done and left without taking action, but I can't find it again now. Belbury (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

That could be this page, which has a single sentence dedicated to this; Families were so upset, police were reportedly called, but no action was taken. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 11:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Found it, it was the NYT article (Police Scotland said that officers were called after the event was canceled, but that the police determined they were not needed. It was not clear who called the police.) which clearly puts the police response after the cancellation rather than being part of it.

The article in Time magazine also includes a direct quote from Police Scotland that officers were called after an event was canceled and advice was given. Belbury (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I found that second one too but it didn't seem as specific as you were looking for, the first one's a damn good quote though. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 11:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Paul Connell Controversy

Is there a place in this article about Paul Connell being accused of grooming a teenager that was a student at the drama school he worked at?

He generally seems to come off pretty well in this article, but it turns out he probably shouldn't. 35.139.53.227 (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Probably not, seeing as he isn't really the main focus of the article. Do you have a source for that though? CommissarDoggo^Talk? 17:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The only half-decent source I found was https://knowyourmeme.com/news/wonka-actor-from-disastrous-wonka-experience-accused-of-grooming-student-from-time-he-was-a-teacher

I don't think there's anything that meets the citation standards, and I'm not convinced of its relevancy to the Experience itself. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

While I don't want to go claiming the allegations are false, TikTok videos and a KnowYourMeme page aren't sources I'd call reliable enough for Wikipedia. If Paul Connell was able to use Coull's scam to springboard into a notable article-worthy film or stage career, it would be something to consider mentioning (and more reliable sources would likely start reporting on it in that case). However, if this fiasco becomes all the world hears of Paul Connell, the allegations would only be worth including here, in my opinion, if some sort of legal action was taken (and given the age of consent law in play, that may not happen). Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 14:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that such allegations are relevant to this page, and even if they were, there are no reliable sources covering them. It's also worth keeping in mind that we should not write about alleged crimes of living people until there is a conviction per WP:BLPCRIME. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Kaledonia Pictures

The story about an upcoming movie being "inspired by" the event is getting some doubtful responses online. From Wikipedia's point of view, is this just a WP:PRSOURCE? Belbury (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Eh... I wouldn't say that particular page that you sent is, because it seems rather critical, but even so I don't think I'd add it this early on. There seems to be no concrete "yes this is definitely happening" yet, which is to be expected considering the event only just happened and suddenly there's apparently a movie coming. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 11:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The film is currently mentioned in the article, I'm questioning the source that we're using for it:

• Squires, John (4 March 2024). "'The Unknown' – A Horror Movie Based on the Viral "Wonka Experience" Has Been Announced". Bloody Disgusting.

All other coverage of the film in the past 24 hours appears to be being framed as "Bloody Disgusting says...", but I'm not sure the original BD source clears WP:PRSOURCE. It reads as if they're summarising a press release from Kaledonia Pictures. Belbury (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree, the majority of what's on there is filler explaining the event and then a short bit on what Kaledonia said. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 11:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'll remove it as a PR source for now. Belbury (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)