Jump to content

Talk:Cory Williams

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again?

[edit]

Ahh, previous version of this aritcle removed with Williams' mail, why did you started again? OnurTcontribs 22:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same thing. I think he's notable enough, but his article was a HUGE spam magnet before the admins deleted it. Ichormosquito 01:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Williams is not noteworthy enough to warrant any inclusion on this Wiki. I am calling for its removal.NealConnery 10:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NealConnery is just jealous. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.90.3 (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC) I agree, Cory (who over his two profiles now has 350.000 Youtube subscribers) is definitely famous enough to maintain on this wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.29.253 (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think he would be notable enough with 129,601 YouTube subscribers. 12.152.160.239 (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TOS

[edit]

posted on youtube.com

"....My Wiki is back! I emailed Wikipedia back and allowed them to post my article back up. The majority of the information is wrong anyway...." -Cory (Reply) (Delete) (Block User) (Mark as Spam)

This article clearly lacks notability and has various issues that need to be addressed now Apelike 02:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes a YouTube person notable?

[edit]

I recently tried to create a wikipedia profile for Philip DeFranco also known as "sxephil" and someone deleted it within the first ten minutes of posting. I wasn't even done adding all the links and information. Philip has a lot more subscribers and views than Cory does, so why doesn't he get his own page? Can some one help me please. Philip is notable in more ways that one. He has been on several main stream television shows, he has a large viewer base, and he's just a good guy who really deserves this. I take this personally because I am a fan of his work. Well Not the crazy "buy his dirty underwear" kind. I'm more of the "appreciative fan of his comedy" kind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UncleBobby629 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look over WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. Administrators will usually delete articles on sight if they don't see reliable sources. Ichormosquito 21:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
basically if Ichormosquito says this YouTuber is notable, then they're notable. Apelike (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Philip DeFranco has more subscribers and many more views than Cory Williams shouldn't "sxephil" have an article? I would start one for him but every time I do it gets deleted. --UncleBobby629 (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Williams is somewhat more notable outside the internet, which gives more purpose to having this article. Leo-Roy! review/gb 18:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Refs

[edit]

We need references and citations BADLY. Relying completely on YouTube as reference violates Wikipedia guidelines, and this issue must be fixed. I'll be looking around the internet, anybody is welcome to help. Leo-Roy! review/gb 18:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


In this case there is not much more we can base it on. I looked on his website and found all this though... http://smpfilms.com/Cory_s_Bio.html We could pick out pieces of information about that if people haven't already. Jonxy 17:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonxy (talk • contribs)

Cory's Cats

[edit]

Shouldn't we put a little more info about Sparta and Loki?Alpha`s Arceus:Are You Siding with the Humans?! 15:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha`s Arceus (talk • contribs)

Current Image Problem

[edit]

The current image used on this article is a copyright violation unloader claims it was given to him by author but provides no proof image will be tagged as such by me or another user. Kyle1278 04:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP Issues

[edit]

I have removed a large section in the YouTube part of the article it was mostly unreferenced and original research, and please note the YouTube dose not pass Wikipedia:RS. Kyle1278 16:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

On the MTV show Pranked, a video of Cory Williams was featured that showed him pranking a friend licking a dried kangaroo anus (or something like that) that had vegemite on it. I've searched and found nothing to reference this. Any help would be appreciated. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

View count inflation

[edit]

Do not remove content you don't like. Just because a primary source a reliable source used for their information is no longer available, it does not make their content any less reliable.--JacktheHarry (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does, actually. Anyone can say that something happened, but if they can't document what exactly happened then it's not a verified source. Do not accuse me of removing things I do not agree with, that was rude and unprofessional. I have double checked, the linked source on that blog page says it doesn't exist, so how can it be proven if it doesn't exist? Use a different source or bring in an administrator. Or if you would like to accuse me of anything else, I'll go get one-A Wild Abigail Appears! Capture me. Moves. 17:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Go get an admin then, you'll find reliable sources are still reliable even if they link to defunct websites. By your logic, we should delete all the articles in Category:Lost films as unreliable because they aren't available anymore. Read WP:LINKROT.--JacktheHarry (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read WP:V. If you can't verify the information by the source or by an archive of the source, and that information is contentious, you remove it until such time that it can be verified. That is one of the core principles here, one of the Pillars, number 2 in fact. We will not simply take your word for it that the source existed at one time. Even Jimbo himself has clearly said it is better to have an incomplete article rather than one with questionable content. This is especially true when dealing with biographical articles. I would also note that this "reliable source" is using the words "twat" and "shit" a great deal in their broken code, which makes me seriously question their reliability to begin with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the source I'm using.. but I would be interested in reading the wikipedia policy page where we are required to do our own original research in checking the sources of a reliable source. Can you link me to it?--JacktheHarry (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the whole point, it's about verification, not just reliability. If you are sure if a source is reliable, you can go to WP:RSN. Most of us that have been selected to be admin, have 8 years of experience, have 50k edits, and have created dozens of articles, including a few GAs and FAs are familiar enough that we seldom get it wrong. Of course, you can take it to RSN if you disagree. In a nutshell, policy says that if something is contentious, it must be cited by a source that clearly passes the expectations of WP:RS, otherwise, it must be removed. You can keep looking around and add it back once you find a reliable source (assuming it doesn't fall short of WP:UNDUE or one of the dozens of other rules we have on content) but not until then. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing on those pages which says sources of sources need to be checked. I'm not sure how you being an admin or having so many edits affects the reliability of the source. If you judge this source to be unreliable, there's over 1,500 different articles using it. That's a huge amount of edits & people that disagree with you. A quick search also brings up support of it.

and so on..

used in FA Bale Out

so the consensus' has already been established that it's reliable.--JacktheHarry (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again, you like to argue but miss the point and lack clarity in your argument. www.totalvom.com doesn't exist, so can't be a reliable source for anything. That is the source I was referring to and the first source linked in this discussion. As for DailyDot (which wasn't mentioned until now), their reliability depends on the subject matter, although they are better than they recently were when in full beta. I'm quite familiar with them, and have been quoted there a bit. In the end, WP:BRD still applies, meaning that any info regarding humans that is questionable and removed must be taken to the talk page and discussed. "Reliable source" isn't the end all argument that justifies content anyway, it is simply one requirement among many. It is totally meaningless if WP:V isn't met, ie: the source no longer exists. You either re-source it, get an approved archive of the old source, or drop the contentious material. That has always been the standard here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, but I'm only using the reliable (and live) source Gigaom.--JacktheHarry (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see one discussion saying it isn't a reliable source in the archives, and I see two people saying it is in another discussion, so no consensus exists. Because it is a blog (defunct or not), and it is not tied to a major news source, the default position has always been to consider it not reliable without clear evidence of editorial oversight, so no, it wouldn't be adequate by itself to prove a contentious claim in a biography. We can keep beating around this, but that is just how it is. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and no one is going to call that an adequate source for that claim. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it was unreliable, somehow I don't think it would get into 1500 pages. Besides the claim isn't 'extraordinary', it's known views have been inflated on the site, and their source is subject admitted it themselves. The source is simply repeating what the subject said themselves. Far from 'extraordinary'.--JacktheHarry (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your argumentum ad populum doesn't make it RS. Blogs aren't RS except for certain circumstances and this is not one of them. Jim1138 (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cory Williams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change of infobox

[edit]

Would it be more appropriate for Cory's infobox to be upgraded to the Youtube personality one? I was looking around at Toby Turner and Olga Kay and noticed they have one and Cory doesn't.

Your thoughts? --A Wild Abigail Appears! Capture me. Moves. 16:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cory Williams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated source used

[edit]

Hi all,

Source number 7 is a WP:DAILYMAIL source, which while deprecated, I believe is appropriate here. This is because it pre-dates the concerning behaviour that led to the deprecation, it's summarising content from his channel, it's not being used to establish notability, and there are no other sources available that contain the information. Any concerns with this? Mdann52 (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not. Deprecated sources are really not usable on a BLP. Please find a proper RS for biographical claims - David Gerard (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cory_Williams&oldid=1230650916"