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


 * 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 delete. This a deletion per WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPUNDEL. Deletion was made by. I'm housekeeping. :-)   Maxim (talk)  01:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please also see this message. Daniel (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Corey Worthington
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article was previously deleted after AfD at, and subsequently a new article was created and speedily deleted under the present name. The speedy deletion was overturned at deletion review, and the article is resubmitted here for discussion whether the new sources sufficiently establish that the article is viable as a biography. Procedural nomination, I abstain (Procedural note: as a referral from WP:DRV, this nomination is outside the remit of WP:CSD). ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Obviously notable. Some recent sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, as the references provided in Corey_Worthington indicate sufficient coverage of this person in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of his notability per the general notability guideline. John254 14:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  14:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for all the same reasons, mainly WP:BLP1E, WP:NOT and for what it's worth, IMO the DRV should never have been closed as overturn in the first place. Black Kite 16:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, even a cursory review of Corey_Worthington and Corey_Worthington would indicate that Corey Worthington is notable for events occurring well after the initial incident. John254 16:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep for reasons I already stated at AfD:Corey Worthington and the deletion review. --Orlady (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - From the most recent Google news hits, I conclude that the name "Corey Worthington" has entered the media vocabulary as a metaphor, at least in Australia. This column in the Sydney Morning Herald of 11 Feb. discusses the self-centeredness of the decade and concludes "Oh hell, let's call it the decade of Corey." This ABC News story about a political topic has a subheading "Federal Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner has compared the Coalition's attitude to inflation to the Victorian teenager Corey Worthington's views on parties." And although this trend-related article in the Sydney Morning Herald is not about Corey, it manages to start out with the words "It's come a tad too late for Corey Worthington but." People who encounter his name in news stories like these and don't know who he is should expect to be able to look him up in Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Article has been created numerous times. This shouldn't even be being discussed in this AfD as the DRV was clearly overturn with no consensus to go straight back to AfD. The system is definitely being gamed here. He's notable according to media all over the world plus the 245 hits on Google News as Corey Delaney and 171 for Corey Worthington. - &#10032; ALLSTAR &#10032; echo 17:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The system is definitely being gamed - by those who want the article to exist. The article should never have been recreated after the first DRV (especially under a different name to end-run around the salting), and the second DRV should not have been closed as overturn (it wasn't "clear" at all - it was no consensus).  It doesn't surprise me that this is happening, though. Black Kite 10:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a complete waste of everyone's time as the same arguments apply as the earlier AfD, DRV and AN/I discussions all of three weeks ago. The same BLP concerns still apply and regardless of the media coverage, he is still only known for the one event; nothing else he has done would even be discussed if not for the tabloid coverage. His fleeting fame is quickly fading here in Australia. As for the DRV being clearly overturn, I struggle to see that as I thought the consensus there was to endorse the deletion but here we are. The only ones gaming the system are those continually dragging this back for discussion ad nauseum despite the earlier clear consensus. Once again it is time that Wikipedia decided if it is an encyclopaedia or merely a recorder of mildly amusing but ultimately trivial events.  If this is kept, I look forward to articles on every dodgy used car salesman, nude wedding, school bully and fad diet that makes tabloid TV shows such as A Current Affair. -- Mattinbgn\talk 18:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The level of coverage is about two orders of magnitude greater than the level of the material you compare this to. We aren't talking about 2 or 3 tabloid sources but rather over 200 sources, many of which are major newspapers and other reliable sources. A large fraction, possibly even a majority aren't even Australian. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Mattinbgn sums it up, "Once again it is time that Wikipedia decided if it is an encyclopaedia or merely a recorder of mildly amusing but ultimately trivial events." This does not even come close on my notability radar. Sure, tons of secondary sources but that alone does not make someone notable. David D. (Talk) 18:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see false dichotomy. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the patronising advice. -- Mattinbgn\talk 19:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case you had better get busy documenting all the other fluff n' stuff "news" item articles. David D. (Talk) 00:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets any notability standard. Notability is not importance. --Dhartung | Talk 20:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for time being and review in 6 months or a year's time. As far as BLP concerns, Worthington himself is not avoiding the media it would seem.  As per User:Orlady the references are quite frequent in the media these days and I concur with user:Dhartung that notability is not importance.--Matilda talk 20:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Current "iconic status" in current pop culture. I agree that it should be kept and reviewed in 6 months to a year. Zad27 (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perfectly verifiable and now notable for more than one event.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 21:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep satisfies Notability and ONEEVENT Fosnez (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple reliable sources establish notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.210.172 (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, and I'm not sure why we're doing this when we just did a DRV. - Philippe &#124; Talk 22:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:GAME of course. - &#10032; ALLSTAR &#10032; echo 22:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nor am I, given that there was no consensus to overturn at the DRV. Black Kite 22:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. This guy is still only known for doing one thing. He's trying, with some success, to extend his 15 minutes of fame by cashing in on this, but he hasn't really done anything newsworthy since. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * keep WP:BLP1E/WP:NOTNEWS no longer apply given that his notability has extended beyond the immediate party itself and has extended to subsequent events (such as his being hired to run parties and the fight he got into with a gang).  Personally, I despise the fact that the media has continued to pay attention to this (indeed, that it got almost any news coverage at all), but past that issue this does meet all the relevant inclusion criteria. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We're supposed to include articles now on people who get in fights with gangs????????? Boy, won't Compton be excited! --Hammersoft (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No. That's obviously not enough. The point is that he has multiple events connected to him so NOTNEWS/BLP1E doesn't apply. Furthermore, we aren't talking about a random gangfight. Again, even that got international coverage. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, still not notable for doing anything except throwing a party and a bit of related press. His agent is milking it, and he might end up being notable for other events, but his "DJ" career is one event in Prahran with 40 people turning up.  Big Brother housemates also do events like this to cash in on their 15 minutes of fame - very few are ever considered notable six months afterwards, despite their name coming up again every once in a while.  Most big brother contestant do not have a biography - Corey has not done enough to justify a biography.  If his worldwide DJ tour actually attracts a reasonable attendance, then he will be notable as a DJ.  Until then, he is just a kid who has broken a few laws and is not repentant. John Vandenberg (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Patently non-notable. Xdenizen (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Obviously notable for one event. Ok, fine, he got a job. That does not instantly make him notable. If he becomes notable in doing that job, then there MIGHT be a case for including an article on him. But, simply having a job hosting parties doesn't make him notable. I am also deeply perturbed by the precedent being set here. The article was created, deleted by AfD, recreated by an admin acting entirely out of line, AfD'd when it should not have been AfD'd, DRV'd when it had already been DRV'd mere weeks before with consensus to keep it deleted and now we're back here at AfD all over again? There's obvious grounds here for a speedy delete. Revisit in six months maybe, and see if he's notable for the new job he has. Right now, he's nothing more than a stupid punk who got embroiled in a party run amok. Nothing of interest. Move on. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, I agree. The first AfD was so conclusive it was speedy closed on WP:BLP grounds. Incidently, that AfD debate was covered in the Australian national media, and it is possible that subsequent debates may also be covered. --Nick Dowling (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment AFAICT, no one here is claiming that he is notable for who he is or for what he has accomplished. IMO, he is notable for the attention that he has received, including extensive coverage by mainstream news media. --Orlady (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. If our notability guidelines lead to this article being kept, it merely shows that there is something wrong with those guidelines. By no criteria is this guy encyclopedic. So WP:IAR and delete. --Bduke (talk) 03:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that's not a good attitude because if we start using it then we all start deleting things that we personally don't consider notable or don't think should be important. For example, I'll go through and delete anything remotely connected to soar operas and reality tv. Maybe after that I'll work my way through American football players. And then we'll move onto football players. This isn't as much of a joke as it sounds, a while back I encountered someone who thought that 19th century members of the United States congress were not in general notable. This is why we need to let the presence or absence of reliable sources decide for us, rather than our own personal opinions about who should be important. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * comment Even in the last few hours more articles mentioning him have popped up. See   . Now of those 4 new ones only the third is minimally substantial and they are all the sort of journalism that I personally despise but when you have people writing opinion pieces about you (which the third piece is), you are generally likely to be notable. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To expand on my point above, this is someone who has clearly entered the popular culture and in a highly verifiable way. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * yay, more news. News writers and editors do not decide for us what is notable.  The way this kid is going, if he does half of the things his agent has lined up for him, he will be notable.  But we do not need to buy the hype and document his every move until then.
 * DYK: Corey is currently staying at a friend's house. (not a joke; the Wikipedia biography on this kid tells us so, and even has a source to boot.) John Vandenberg (talk) 05:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per WP:BLP1E. Multiple sources has never been the issue, the issue has been that the subject of the article is a stupid kid who made the news once, only to fade away once his fifteen minutes were up.  A couple of trivial local mentions of his desperate attempts to prolong those fifteen minutes don't change the fact that he's only notable for one relatively minor event.  Lankiveil (complaints 04:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC).
 * Comment, and why was the deletion overturned? There does not appear to have been a clear consensus at the DRV page to do so.  By my count, the !votes stood at 21 to overturn vs 19 endorsing, which can hardly be interpreted as a consensus. Lankiveil (complaints 04:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC).
 * It's worth noting that the original article (Corey Delaney) was salted. The subsequent articles appear to have used his alternate last name (I don't know which one is more correct, but 'Delaney' is more commonly used in the media) to get around this restriction. --Nick Dowling (talk) 05:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The question of WP:BIO1E no longer applies since his fame (such as it is) has outlasted the specific event in question, and, moreover, he has parlayed it into a minor entertainment career by his own choice. The article meets our core content policies, especially WP:V, as it has numerous reliable sources. Deletion hasn't even been requested by the subject, as far as I can tell. I see no valid reason to remove this article and I think it meets all the requirements of Wikipedia policy. *** Crotalus *** 04:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Played it into a minor entertainment career indeed. Are we to include biographies on every minor entertainer out there????? --Hammersoft (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If the articles meet the three core content policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV), then, yes, why not? Wikipedia is not paper and we don't have any space limitations. In most cases of "non-notable" vanity articles, the problem is that there are no reliable sources and the articles thus fail WP:V. That is manifestly not the case here. *** Crotalus *** 05:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * When that entertainer already made national news and that minor entertainer then continued to make news focusing on his entertainement aspects I would think that the answer would likely be yes. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Which still roots on WP:BLP1E. I.e., not notable. --Hammersoft (talk) 05:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an absurd application of this guideline. By that criterion, we shouldn't have an article on Buzz Aldrin, who is only known for one event and all the other prominence in his life has stemmed from that event. The purpose of BIO1E is to prevent isolated news stories from being made into permanent Wikipedia articles (and possibly causing serious embarrassment or difficulty for subjects), and that's not the case here; there is substantial and ongoing media coverage, and the subject has sought out the spotlight. *** Crotalus *** 05:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Aldrin would almost certainly be notable even if he hadn't gone on the moon. His years as one of the first US Astronauts made him highly notable. See my example of Hinckley below which does the job a bit better. (a counterfactual version of Aldrin however does raise the same issue). JoshuaZ (talk) 05:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How does that "root" on BLP1E? It means he is notable for more than a single one-time event. Hence, BLP1E doesn't apply. Furthermore, note that BLP1E has limits beyond which after a certain amount of news coverage we have an article anyways. I don't think for example anyone is going to claim that John Hinckley shouldn't have an article (no, I'm not saying that Worthington/Delanery is as notable as Hinckley, merely pointing out that there is some limit beyond which we don't really apply BLP1E). JoshuaZ (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Not notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that based on the Wikipedia definition of notability? Becuase I have trouble seeing him not meeting that criterion. The issue here isn't notability. He meets that. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:JNN for why Buckshot06's !vote is not a valid discussion point and should be ignored by the debate closer. <b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b> 05:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Why are you assuming that Buckshot is acting in bad faith or ignorance of Wikipedia's notability policies? He is a highly experianced editor who has taken the lead with getting several articles to FA standard, so it is safe to assume that when he says "not notable" he's refering to WP:N and/or WP:BLP. Moreover, he'd just been asked to clarify his vote when you jumped in demanding that it be ignored. --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Crotalus and others, I do believe that this person meets notability standards having taken everything said thus far into consideration. (jarbarf) (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I didn't take part but I would have definitely voted delete 3 weeks ago. But it appears the media have fallen for his game and he has successfully extended his 15 minutes into something much more. While it may be stupid that the media made some idiot famous for no reason, it seems to me he's reaching the status we have to keep Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Overnight celebrity, quickly forgettable as his star fades. No indication of long-term notability appropriate for an encyclopedic article. WWGB (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:BLP the article still says he notable for holding a party, there is no difference in his notability from what was already raised in the Original AFD, the DRV of that, the MFD of the AfD and the more recent DRV whiched started after a prod under CSD#G4. Gnangarra 10:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:ONEEVENT certainly seems to cover it. He's notable only because of a single event. While there has been continued coverage it all stems from that event and if it had never occurred we wouldn't be having this discussion because he's done nothing else that is at all independently notable. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per previous deletion nomination. 15 minutes are up. -- Chuq (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:N, WP:BLP1E (he is not notable and in the cold light of day will have been forgotten in 6 months, we really shouldn't be reporting on named minors for posterity in circumstances such as these, and the only reason much of this media coverage exists is self-promotion for the tabloids concerned, let's not forget it was a quiet news period with everyone still recovering from the election and it being mid-non-ratings period on TV, and it certainly wouldn't hold up to peer-reviewed or any other reference standard.) Also agree with many other points made by Delete voters. Orderinchaos 16:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Corey is a hero to fun-loving teens everywhere. Just kidding. Keep per Orlady and JoshuaZ's arguments. Mike R (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Orderinchaos. Twenty Years 17:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I find it telling that the #1 entry for Corey Delaney or Corey Worthington on news.google.com is whether or not Wikipedia will keep this article. Pretty telling. Also note; he's not notable for hosting anything yet. So he got a job hosting parties, so he intends on going on a world DJ tour. So what? He's done NOTHING yet, except act stupid in front of a camera and get his ass handed to himself on a platter by some other punks. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Follow-up comment: That's interesting, the #1 entry for ""Corey Worthington" on Google News for me returns an article in the Melbourne Herald Sun titled Win Corey Worthington's sunglasses followed by Meet Corey Worthington, Australia's Paris Hilton  in News Limited followed by Why the letter 'i' will define this decade  in the The Sydney Morning Herald followed by another 160 unique news articles.  RFerreira (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's involvement in notable events is not new. It is unfortunate. If anything, the fact that this is getting coverage is more evidence that it is notable; even such a minor thing as whether or not he gets a Wikipedia article are being covered. (Incidentally, the source discussing this is ). And again, we don't decide what is worth having reliable sources about it; the reliable source makers do that. If we start acting that we'd have never ending deletion wars over every topic that people personally dislike. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. He's done absolutely nothing other than throw a party which got out of hand, and then get plastered on the Interwebs. FCYTravis (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per JoshuaZ, this person has received, and continues to receive, a ridiculous amount of news coverage, far exceeding our notability guidelines. RFerreira (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't delete now. As it appears now, this article may actually be heading somewhere. The singular event is no longer so singular, and real, expansive notability seems to be developing. It may not last, and the article could certainly be validly considered for deletion in the future, but at least for now there seems to be enough. RyanGerbil10 (Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 19:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't approach here, and this is, from my analysis of the situation, turning into a re-hashing of the notorious Daniel Brandt, The Game (game) and Clock Crew debates. --Solumeiras (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are far more sources than those did (even than Brandt), and we don't have a subject here who wants deletion. (If you recall for The Game we had a single short piece from a Belgium newspaper and that was it). JoshuaZ (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My comment was a reference to Wikipedia process, rather than the subject of the article itself. The aforementioned articles had the not a ballot template added to their AfD debates. My actual opinion on the matter is Delete until new sources come to light, and that are not related to the incident itself. --Solumeiras (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, we do have that. We have new sources about his later work running parties and news sources about the gang altercation. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And again, we include people in an encyclopedia because they've been in a gang fight? Won't Compton be happy! So WHAT if he was in a gang fight? That's hardly notable. Nor have any of his (so far non-existent) hostings been notable. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And again, if someone already were in the news for an earlier event and then got in international news after a gang fight then yeah, we would probably include them. The key is that the level of coverage of the fight pushes us over BLP1E since this is no longer a single news event. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooo, recipe for getting a Wikipedia article! Get caught up in a party gone bad, talk as moronically as possible to the press, and get beaten up by a gang. Has this kid done ANYTHING encyclopedic? No. He's notable for nothing. He hasn't actually DONE anything. When he runs some party that actually merit verifiable secondary source attention then there's something to go on. Now, it's just news hysteria because of the party gone bad he was in. The only reason we're even talking about the gang smackdown is because of the party gone bad, which had virtually nothing to do with him in the first place!!!! --Hammersoft (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, that's an argument for why the media shouldn't be paying attention to this, not an argument that we shouldn't have an article once they've made that decision. Again, if we let notability mean personal interpretations of what is important than everyone will be deleting a heck of a lot of stuff. (I for example will call for deletion of almost every single soap opera related thing ever.) JoshuaZ (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan to me :) More seriously...just because the press covers something doesn't make it notable. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well yes and no. our notability guideline focuses essentially on coverage by reliable sources. The distinction here is between notability in the colloquial sense and notability for Wikipedia purposes. It might be more accurate to say that just because the press covers something doesn't make it important. And we do understand that for limited press coverage that we don't want articles. That's why we have WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. However, those don't apply in this case since the coverage has been extensive over a long period of time. And again, we don't even really mean those completely since we all agree that we would have articles on John Hinckley and similar people. So NOTNEWS doesn't apply, and even if NOTNEWS were relevant it would then be a subjective matter of how newsworthy this person was (if I thought NOTNEWS could apply in this case I'd be inclined to argue for deletion, but it is hard to see that at this point). JoshuaZ (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep My application of BLP generally, and BLP1E and NOTNEWS in specific, usually tracks closely with that of JoshuaZ, and so it does here. Joe 20:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Like I've said before, this is the definitive example of WP:BLP1E. Should he truly develop genuine notability someday in the future, there's no reaason the article can't be undeleted at that time. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I recreated the page and started the undelete, I think he's notable more for the media coverage and reactions to it than the party itself, thus negating the one event thing. Either way, he's got tons of worldwide press coverage. --AW (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course he's notable because of the media coverage but the media coverage only came about because of the party. If there was no party he'd still be an unknown teenager. Every bit of publicity that he's received has been because of the party. Nothing else he's done is remotely notable and the party is only notable because it was a slow news day. Media coverage alone doesn't make one notable. If it did, Wikipedia would be full of articles about people nobody has heard of. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a good comparison at all. We've all heard of this person. He has gotten international news coverage which is still continuing a month after the event. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I question that. I only heard of the guy through wikipedia. Poll people on the street and how many actually have heard of this guy? And that's now.  What about next year? David D. (Talk) 22:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, maybe the aritcle should be about Corey the phenomenon (notable), not Corey the person (non notable) Bruiseviolet (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment the deletion was the subject of two news articles, the second one published today: --AW (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a bad sign right there. They've run out of stuff to report. David D. (Talk) 22:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is really nice being in a nation with no news :-) Wish there was even less of it! --Matilda talk 22:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Perfect example of WP:BLP1E. Dale Clapperton (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as per Mattinbgn, Starblind & others. DancingMan (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, as per WP:BLP1E. The fact this little upstart got his mug in the papers says more about tabloid news desperation than it does about him. Half the articles discussing him even dwell on this fact! As of right now, he has been involved in ONE event that briefly touched public conciousness, and it was not even of his own making. -- Lenky (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, as we already went over in the previous DRV; this shouldn't have been restored.  krimpet ✽  01:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - non notable punk. Just another clown on A Current Affair or Today Tonight - none of his mentions in the BBC etc were remotely serious either, they were all in teh nonsense lark sections.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 01:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.