Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Peppers 5

Brian Peppers

Do we have to go through this again? Still not notable enough, and this has gone through enough legitimate AfDs. Speedy delete and protect against recreation. --Nlu (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. PJM 17:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the methods of the article's recreator (Mr. Sidaway) are unfortunately offensive to consensus, the content is verifiable and barely noteworthy, I suspect. Xoloz 17:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do not speedily delete. This is not a "keep" vote, as I have mixed feelings regarding this article's existence (and therefore must remain neutral for the time being). I'm commenting to stress the fact that the current version is not a candidate for speedy deletion; despite contentions that the subject is non-notable, the previous versions were deleted because of copyright violations and personal attacks. Tony's stub is not a recreation of previously deleted content, so this AfD discussion must be allowed to run its course. —Lifeisunfair 18:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll join with those concerns. Speedy delete votes are out-of-order. Content has been rewritten; evidence provided; please reevaluate. Xoloz 18:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I refer you to yesterday's deletion, with the following reason: "The result of the debate was Speedily deleted - The very concept of this article has been deleted as non-notable by consensus on AfD. There has been no consensus on WP:DRV to overturn the deletion. It is gaming the system to somehow pretend that because the words are different, the article should stand. WP:DRV is the place for deletion appeals. FCYTravis 08:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)". Flyboy Will 18:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - While the most recent speedy deletion may have been appropriate, FCYTravis' summary is incorrect. The original AfD debate resulted in a consensus that the article (at the time) was a copyright violation and an attack page, and subsequent deletions have resulted from recreations of the same or similar content. There has never been a consensus that the subject is non-notable, and that is what should be discussed here and now. —Lifeisunfair 18:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this would be an encyclopedia, being born with a malformity is not worthy enough for entry. J E Bailey 18:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Protect. Flyboy Will 18:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm not familiar with the previous AFD situations, but this seems to be notable enough that Snopes had to devote a page to it. I don't know how accurate it is to call it a meme, however. 23skidoo 18:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and protect from re-creation. The claim that this is a well-known "internet meme" has been argued before and failed to persuade the community. Prior AFD decisions did conclude that this person is non-notable. (Admittedly, that conclusion was somewhat obscured because the deleted versions were also non-allowed attack pages, copyvios and/or re-creations.) No new evidence has been presented which convinces me that this so-called meme is any more notable than it was the last time we rejected the article. A single Snopes article does not meet the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Precisely one AfD debate (the first) was allowed to run its course. Including the nominator, three of the eight voters (Mike Rosoft, BDAbramson and JamesBurns) explicitly stated that Brian Peppers is not notable, and Andrew Lenahan implicitly expressed such an opinion. 4/8 is not a consensus, and even if we were to count Supine (whose comments were ambiguous) as part of the "not notable" camp, 5/8 still falls short of 2/3. Furthermore, that discussion concluded six months ago, after which Brian Peppers may have attained greater fame. There's an excellent chance that the current AfD debate will result in a consensus that he's non-notable (and I'm leaning in that direction), but it would be inappropriate to cut the discussion short. —Lifeisunfair 19:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy The only genuinely verifiable facts about Mr. Peppers are that he has some sort of physical deformity (nobody seems to know exactly what) and that he was convicted of some sort of minor crime (again, nobody seems to know what, though we do know he only got 30 days in jail for it, so it couldn't have been anything major). Those two very vague "facts" are the sum of what is known and verifiable about Mr. Peppers, and do not under any circumstances whatsoever even slightly come close to anything encyclopedic. Yes, people make fun of his unusual face on some forums, and I suppose in the interest of free speech they have a right to do so. But Wikipedia cannot, should not, and must not glorify the harassment of this physically-impaired person. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The article's purpose is not to harass Mr. Peppers. It is to provide factual information on a man, and trace his rise to popularity on the internet. We shouldn't refuse articles on morality grounds. To make use of a user's (whose name escapes me right now) earlier comment, why don't we delete the Abortion and Suicide articles? --Aleron235 19:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's ironic that the term "popularity on the internet" is used. Popular implies some sort of fanbase like Harry Potter or Star Wars. He's not popular; he's been made a subject of ridicule and hatred because of his appearance. That may be a sort of notoriety, but please don't try to pretend he's notable. If there are mouth-breathers out there who want to find out more about this guy, they can haunt their usual places and get their yucks on some other site's dime. Wikipedia is not a freak show. Jtmichcock 20:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment This argument is not one that I find very persuasive. I have gotten 10 emails about this person from various people. His noteriety DOES make him notable. Notable enough for 65K Hits on google. The fact that he has been passed around from email to email and is the subject of vast public attention is in itself sufficent to demonstrate notability. — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 01:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because Abortion and Suicide are encyclopedic topics, which are the basis of a good deal of studies, books, media coverage, etc. Peppers is made fun of on some forums on the internet. That's about it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and protect from recreation. This is not Snopes. Jtmichcock 19:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that we've gone through this for the fifth time (fourth time was yesterday, with my article) shows that the article is important and a significant amount of people want to see it on Wikipedia.--Aleron235 19:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I should add that there is a minor consensus to recreate it on deletion review.--Aleron235 19:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - In what way is the review a consensus? And this is a selective deletion review, as past reviews have indicated a consensus, I think, not to recreate. --Nlu (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - A majority of the comments on the page express displeasure with how the article was deleted. I called it a minor consensus since all parties are not in agreement either way, but there seems to be a strong showing from the Keep camp.--Aleron235 20:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - There was a minor consensus to recreate it and send it here, so a new AfD can be done without the copyvio and personal attack problems that other AfDs had. Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 20:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although not a speedy candidate. Brian Peppers could be notable if he was either a particularly heinous offender or a notable internet meme. The first has not been proven; in my judgment he's not a meme worthy of an article. David | Talk 19:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, absolutely not notable, as what it is: a hoax made about a person who has physical deformities. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 20:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Why exactly do you consider it a hoax? If you read the latest edits to the article, you'll see that it is not a hoax.--Aleron235 20:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even if it were, the dude is obviously not notable, and at most it is a minor meme. My opinion stands. Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 01:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely unencyclopedic. FCYTravis 21:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as he is an Internet meme. I have seen the meme myself. --Thephotoman 21:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Internet meme, snopes topic, someone from his home state once told me they talk about him all the time. Besides, there's obviously a serious interest in it. :) CanadianCaesar 22:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficiently notable subject, sources are cited. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, although not speedily. Durova 22:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is not a deletion criterion, and certainly not a criterion for nomination. No other reasons for deleting have been listed, so it should remain. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-18 22:33
- Notability is a deletion criterion. See WP:CSD#A7. --Nlu (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article asserts Peppers' significance, therefore it doesn't fit the particular criterion you selected. But also, like it says, if the notability is disputed, we should argue it on AfD, as we are right now. So it's not a cut-and-dry cause for deletion, as you seem to be making it out to be. --Aleron235 04:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No of course we don't have to go through this again. It's a perfectly good stub, so let's keep it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
perfectly good. Mileage varies on all possible meanings of those words. Delete and salt the Earth afterwards. --Calton | Talk 01:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, minor internet fad. Pilatus 01:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC) Besides, on the chance that this is real, has any of the "keep" voters thought about the guy as a person?[reply]
Delete - just because someone had the great intelligence to point and laugh at this guy, there is no justification for this article being here. Barneyboo (Talk) 01:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's interesting this proves that some memes are selective to location or who you are... but the fact that I have received links about this man no less then 10 times in my email box tells me he is Notable. Not because of anything he has done but because of what has happened with him. — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 01:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As odd as it may be, he seems notable enough, just looking in Google. Nfitz 02:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All of this is true and it is noteworthy. Many people I know have searched for info on him and i direct them to this article.Chewy01234 02:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- User's first edit. --Nlu (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And salt the earth afterwards per Calton. The Land 10:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not the job of an information bank to pander to the changing landscape of taste, but to represent fact. It's a polemic point but, for example, should a dictionary not contain racist slang? If not, their meanings are open to being missunderstood and the roots of the problem missed. This is an article which satisfies a demand for knowledge about this situation and as such should not be deleted to deny people that chance to learn the facts behind it.

Keep - if we delete this, what's stopping us from deleting all your base are belong to us? --Phil 14:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, notable net meme, shouldn't have been deleted to begin with. --12.25.42.210 14:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC) <---this was me, got logged out. --badlydrawnjeff 14:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a decently popular meme/internet fad/whatever and, to be honest, I (and many others I'm sure) was pretty curious about what exactly was the deal with the guy after seeing the photo. Snurks ^{T C} 20:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The only factual information I have been able to find on Brian Peppers. Worth noting that other internet memes have pages, this one is just as, if not more, useful than those.
Keep - would much rather salt the earth under people who think that six people can create binding consensus for all eternity on a topic than under articles. Phil Sandifer 21:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is the "canonical" place of information in the opinion of many people. It's usually where they will first look when they do a research on a specific subject. Therefore we must make the encyclopaedia as informative as possible. It is the attention Brian Peppers got, not his facial features, that is worth noting on Wikipedia. The current disagreements just fuels his celebrity status even more. If the article is not copyvio and is of a suitable standard, it should be kept. --★Ukdragon37★^talk 21:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Question Where is the verifiability that this is an Internet meme? It seems central to establish that it is, since notability is a deletion criterion for biographical subjects (per WP:NOT). Demi ^T/_C 01:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The real question is, are we verifiable? All kidding aside, there really isn't an objective way to verify that it is a meme. I can provide you some links:

Encyclopedia Dramatica entry. Encyclopædia Dramatica is widely known for containing many memes.
It is, and has been on the page Internet phenomenon for a while without objection.--Aleron235 01:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the only reason his entry is even notable is based upon ridicule, one cannot ignore the fact that it is a solid internet fad. What really clinches his position of entry is that he has been merchandised. This crossover of mediums is an indication that he is worthy to be kept but his page should be monitored closely as I suspect it will be the target of vandalism for years to come. Boston2austin 02:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]