Talk:The Corley Conspiracy

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 November 2008. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Opera This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!OperaWikipedia:WikiProject OperaTemplate:WikiProject OperaOpera articles

Two minutes after this article was created, Excirial (talk · contribs) placed the Template:Cleanup at its top.

This is from that template's page: Note: this generic template should only be used when a more specific tag is not suitable. The list of more specific tags provides scores of specific cleanup-templates.

As it stands, I find the overly generic cleanup-template which has been placed in this article utterly unhelpful and I will remove it. Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does Mike Corley deserve his own Wiki page does anybody think? He seems quite notable.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 16:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but such an article has been deleted in the past. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Mike Corley. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He deserves one for being unintentionally hilarious. His webpage www.mi5.com marks him as the world's most paranoid and delusional man. He thinks news broadcasters are looking at him thro his TV and equally dolally stuff.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 09:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, some of these issues were raised at Talk:Mike Corley#Merge from The Corley Conspiracy. I fail to see how an opera that played in a single venue for only 3 days meets the General Notability Guidelines. The article currently sources a perfectly good independent published source that covers the topic in depth, but it's the only one I've been able to find, and it reads like a local events review; not something worth national or international attention. If someone could provide additional sources or explanation of the topic's notability, that'd be great. Otherwise, I think I'd prefer this topic to merge/redirect to Corley's article, but I may need to renominate this article at WP:AfD. The original nomination omitted any justification, and recieved a non-admin closure. -Verdatum (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Length of run is not an argument against notability. A Broadway play that is infamous for closing on opening night can have more notability than one with a moderate run elsewhere. In this case, as User:Andy Dingley pointed out when reverting your notability tag, "A notable work, by a notable composer, performed as part of a notable festival."

As for the non-admin closure of the deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Snowball clause is meant to prevent such bureaucratic wikilawyering. Would an admin order a redirect to another non-notable article? Aren't the arguments made at Mike Corley and the unanimity in the deletion discussion enough?

When you began, your motives appeared innocent enough. As you pursued different actions, you demonstrated wikilawyering skills. Having spent enough time holding this discussion with you, further pursuit over this content should be seen as trolling. It will be at least my fourth defense of the subject matter. As it is, I regret not having discouraged User:SmokeyTheCat from trying to recreate the Mike Corley article, because life was simpler when the consensus that an opera is an opera explained itself. MMetro (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree that length of run is not strong evidence for a lack of notability. However, lacking a significant run suggests the need of stronger evidence for it's notability. For example, I have no problem with the article on Moose Murders, as it has plenty of sources explaining and supporting it's notability. Taking apart your quote of Andy Dingley, "A notable work" is an unproven assertion. "A notable composer" does not mean that all productions of such a composer are Notable; this has been well established by the various notability guidelines. I regret I don't know too terribly much about Tim Benjamin, as the Wikipedia article is rather brief. Finally, "a notable festival" likewise does not mean that all productions are worthy of an article. When I checked information about the festival, none of the other productions have articles. Perhaps it is sufficient to merge the information about the opera (separate from the background of Corley) to the composer, the festival, or some combination of the two.

The Snowball clause is a way of closing something that doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of going through. I agree that for that original nomination, it was an appropriate mechanism for closure. However, if I were to renominate this article, and present my argument, and enough editors were to view the nomination, I have no reason to believe it will be a solid vote of keep.

I read the arguments of the deletion discussion carefully. To quote from it, one makes the claim it has "requisite coverage". This is incorrect, it only has a single independent source. The same user expresses it is "Interesting", though the user appropriately acknowledges this isn't a argument either. Another editor states that the AfD "doesn't say why the article should be deleted". I Agree completely. That's why I'm providing one. And the rest are similar complaints of failure to follow proper procedure.

I can't tell whether or not you find my familiarity and use of WP policies and guidelines to be a negative thing. However, your use of the pejorative term Wikilawyering may suggest it. I hope you understand that I use them not as 'whatever means necessary to get my way', but as a shorthand to convey my position, and provide evidence that my position is supported through concensus.

Merely because you feel you have spent enough time discussing the matter, does not mean that further pursuit is trolling. According to m:What is a troll?, trolling is defined as "any deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia,"(their emphasis). If you meant some other definition, then you may want to use less ambiguous neologisms. I'm trying to improve the encyclopedia by seeing that its articles fulfill the Notability guidelines. I restated my concern here, despite some redundancy to the merge discussion, so that discussion regarding this article can take place on this talkpage. This way, I hope that my concerns will be addressed, preferably by showing that the topic is notable by providing independent sources. -Verdatum (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was my hope that because you appreciated the discussion history I provided on the redirect, that we might share the same ideals regarding the ability to preserve previous versions for their information. When I found my Thanksgiving holiday wracked with fears about what your next move could be, and that it would be too sudden for me to react, I felt differently. Voicing how material may be improved is one thing. Forcing editors to disrupt their other plans to protect existing material, especially from a threat of deletion after failing a consensus on your previous action, is another. It's not like I can schedule a junket to England to immediately satiate your demands for more sourcing. But I'm certain that with a notable composer at a notable festival -- both have wikilinks that you've checked -- that there is copyright held with a publishing company, which means that there will be royalty records of any other production of the opera, but I don't know where to look.

If you review the history of MI-5 Persecution, you will find that listing the article for deletion had started an edit war, where in addition to vandalism, User:Michael Bednarek and I had to revert editors who were stripping huge chunks of the article so that they could declare it irrelevant. To me, that is the worst face of Wikipedia, where useful contributions to an article can be lost just because they were added at a bad time. And that is why I am weary of any move endorsing an official action.

Rome wasn't built in a day, but this article has moved along in comparison to other stubs in the genre that don't even have a citation. And rec.arts.theatre.musicals had a discussion that brought the musical to attention during the New Year's Crapflooding of 2008. So while you've continued to suggest that this article be redirected to other articles, it could also be argued that they should be redirected here. Info regarding either the festival or composer enhances this article, whereas a detailed explanation of the opera's subject does not enhance either alternative. This article is also much more appropriate to the scope of an Opera Wikiproject than the biographical article ever could be.

It is comforting that you are discussing what needs to be addressed rather than attempting more bold moves to the project, because wrong moves hurt articles. We would have a better Mike Corley article if it had one continuous history, rather than three separate attempts, but I think the article ends up with serious WP:BLP issues every time it becomes meaningful, because he denies sending the actual posts. As it stands, there is better information in the Usenet celebrity listing than in the current article, which has no citation. That article needs to be improved and able to survive an AfD before the redirect from MI-5 Persecution or even redirecting this article can be seriously considered. MMetro (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]