Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Corey Worthington (2nd nomination)

message: * http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,23195635-5014239,00.html --Matilda talk 20:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate in the news 

message: I have a few issues with this particular finding as part of the ArbCom ruling. Whilst I definitely think that in its spirit and intention (along with the rest of the WP:BLP policy) it is definitely the right thing for Wikipedia, it also has the potential to remove perfectly verifiable and neutral articles (the article itself was neutral enough - what the sources that are available to write this said about its subject may not have been) about notable subjects (this has clearly been the subject of in-depth, many non-trivial reliable published sources over more than the period of time that it was initially short burst of news) such as this one. Wikipedia originally set out to be an encyclopedia of all human knowledge without restrictions, and whilst consensus can change, I am an inclusionist at heart, I believe, after much internal conflict between deletionism and inclusionism. If there's enough verifiable information about a subject to write a large enough article on it - it should have an article - or if there's not enough, I would recommend a merge in most cases provided there's an adequate and appropriate merge target.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 18:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is knowledge wrt wikipedia role as an encyclopedia, everything? No, otherwise nothing would ever be deleted. So many here are falling back on guidelines that are not written in stone, and are definitely open to interpretation, to try and persuade those who argue "delete" that they are incorrect. There is no correct or incorrect. This will always be subjective and at present there are many favouring delete for completely rationale and legitimate reasons.  Best now is to review this in 6 months rather than starting up yet another big discussion. If he is really as notable as some here are saying it will be very obvious in six months.  What's the rush? David D. (Talk) 18:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I'm particularly concerned because we  had an ongoing AfD and then had this unilaterial deletion in the middle of it. A deletion which at least one ArbCom member has said was not very much in keeping with the ArbCom's earlier directions on such matters. Allowing these sort of deletions to stand makes admins have much more responsibility and power than they are supposed to. We classicly say that admins are janitors. Well, if so, let them do janitorial work, not make unilateral decisions that then cannot be overturned for 6th months. Wikipedia is supposed to be run by consensus; so it might be a good idea to actually do that. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it unprecedented to close early? Possibly in one so contentious, but I still don't see the urgency here. Couldn't one just go one policy step further back and say why was it recreated after an relatively unsucccessful deletion review? David D. (Talk) 19:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was recreated because DRV said that there were enough new sources that a new AfD made sense. Furthermore, the AfD wasn't closed early. The article was deleted citing BLP:UNDEL and then someone else closed the AfD as moot. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Certainly some said go back for an AfD but not many.  I had not realised it was deleted before the AfD was closed, I didn't follow that closely.  The second AfD didn't seem to be going much better than the first anyway especially given the new sources. David D. (Talk) 19:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, the main reason I'm holding off on DRV this right now is that I'm not convinced that the article would have stayed. There appeared in the second AfD to be at the time of deletion a slight preference for deletion over keeping. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was mainly judging based on the gathering momentum of deletes. i think those that want to keep things badly usually comment earlier in AfD's since they already have their eyes on it.  Usually those that lean towards delete are not monitoring such topics as closely, for obvious reasons. David D. (Talk) 21:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BLPUNDEL]] 

message: This article still should be deleted.  The kid has done nothing of serious note and is a flash-in-the-pan, overnight "celebrity" that nobody will care about in June.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whistlesgowhoo (talk • contribs) 20:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: June? Try March. The article should remain deleted and NEVER appear. Timmah86 (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete

message: Why was this closed after 2 days? This is bad process. I didn't even get a chance to say what I want to about this. Why is consensus always dictated by the few on this site? JRG (talk) 12:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there was DRV but that was just speedy closed out of process also. So... JoshuaZ (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  DRV is open again. Coredesat has nicely agreed to reopen the speedy closed debate. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks (and to Coredesat as well) - my faith in at least some WP editors is restored. JRG (talk) 08:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only 2 days?