Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 21/Brian Peppers

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep deleted. I'm snowball closing this early as there is clear, overwhelming consensus, and the length of this page after only half a day is already excessive to the point of ridiculousness. Further hand-wringing for its own sake only a) wastes our time and b) makes us look like idiots for devoting reams and reams of debate to a YTMND joke. Enough. Hopefully "Brian Peppers Day" 2008 will be celebrated by absolutely no-one, because we'll have completely forgotten about it 364 days before.

Per several suggestions I'm redirecting this to List of internet phenomena and protecting, since that contains all the information needed and is preferable to a self-reference. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Follow up: Information regarding Brian Peppers has been deleted from that article, so this will remain a redlink unless/until there is a stable target for a redirect.[reply]

Brian Peppers

Brian Peppers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Someone is going to put this on DRV today, and it might as well be me. The existence of Brian Peppers is certain; see the Ohio Sex Offender Registry. He has made Fox News [1], and I suspect that a lexisnexis search of the Lucas County area will find similar stories; unfortunately I only have access to UK newspapers. Although WP:WEB specifically states that ytmnd, blogs, and other web flotsam should not be used as sources, we must apply common sense and ignore all rules. This google search cannot be used as a source, but it can certainly be used to estabilish the (irrefutable, imo) notability of the subject.

So, here we are, on what is already being called "Brian Peppers Day" by certain websites. Let's discuss. Dave 08:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see a good article with sources in userspace first. I don't want to just unprotect and let people throw crap up. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't having unprotected pages with "people throwing crap up" sort of what wikipedia is all about? Seems like the best way to reach a quality article is through collaboration. 68.61.241.9 09:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not when any article on the subject is likely to have a morbid focus on his physical deformity and criminal history. Awyong J. M. Salleh 09:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. In the year or so since deletion, not one additional reliable source has been produced, and the sole reliable source is not primarily about Peppers but about the internet rumour that his mugshot was a fake (so fails the primary notability criterion by a long way); sole data is in relation to an offence about which we know next to nothing plus snickering at his appearance (so WP:BLP also says no thanks). No press coverage (local or otherwise) has been cited, no substantive details of the offence or the victim, no biographical data, no indication of what might have caused the supposed congenital deformity, no data on whether the wheelchair in the pictures is the result of a permanent disability, nothing on Factive, nothing on Google News, nothing on Google Scholar, no citations in books on notable sex offenders - the sum total of verifiable knowledge about Peppers is that he was convicted of a technical offence at the low end of the sexual offences scale, and some people with no scruples turned him into an unwilling participant in a freakshow. Plus it is a troll-magnet, and that is pretty much the only thing it ever will be. Leave this on the YTMND wiki where it belongs. Guy (Help!) 10:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO Troll Magnets are a good thing, as they keep all the vandalsim in one place. I will address your other points after this discussion has matured a bit. Dave 10:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So find them, and bring them here. FCYTravis 10:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation - I'll repeat what I said on the Admin's noticeboard. Here is obviously a reliable source but that site cannot verify much, only basic details that verify he is a sex offender. here is another but that is again only basic details that do not show why he is notable. Other than the snopes article, there is one final reliable source that verifies notability but as you can see they took the link down to the news story and now it simply leads to their main page. The only remnants of the article's contents that I found are now, sadly, on the YTMND located at http:// brianpeppersfoxtoledo dot ytmnd dot com/ (can't write out ytmnd links due to blacklist) However, as an admin I can verify that the website did indeed have that information at one time (and it definitely asserts notability). Now, this brings us to an interesting scenerio. According to Wikipedia:Citing sources#What_to_do_when_a_reference_link_.22goes_dead.22, this reference is still considered a reliable source and should not be removed. If none of those strategies succeed, do not remove the inactive reference, but rather record the date that the original link was found to be inactive — even inactive, it still records the sources that were used, and it is possible hard copies of such references may exist, or alternatively that the page will turn up in the near future in the Internet Archive, which deliberately lags by six months or more. So if we follow that guideline the link I provided should be considered a reliable source, and along with the snopes article that would be two reliable sources that assert notability, plus we have the other ones that verify he exists. Thus the article passes WP:V and WP:RS. VegaDark 10:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. - I'd be happy to write up a version in the userspace first if someone wants to see it. However, I'm going to bed for the night so if someone wants me to they will have to wait for tomorrow at the earliest. VegaDark 10:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's like citing the Yellow Pages as a reliable source. This individual has not been the primary focus of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. As a litmus test: can you give me an authoritative source for the reason he has an apparent facial deformity? The only reference I know of in any reliable source freely acknowledges that it is speculative. Incidentally, the Fox Toledo link does not mention peppers, and a search of their site turns up zero hits. Just like Google News. And Factiva. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse status quo per JzG. The triviality of the "sources" is astounding. As somebody said already, probably JzG again, the extent of a verifiable article is something like "Brian Peppers is this guy. Maybe he did some bad stuff, but we don't know what. Some dimwits on teh internets, they like to laugh at his picture." Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
he promised we could have the page back today. but there's no page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghetteaux (talk • contribs) 12:10, 21 February 2007.
No, he said that we could not have a page before today. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. I fail to any notability in the subject. --Edokter (Talk) 11:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep deleted We can play our little in-house include/exclude games. And whether a church/school/company/garage band gets an article or not is of no existential significance. But this is different. This has ethical issues. With the powerful medium we have, come humanitarian responsibilities. There is a real world and real people out there and our actions have consequences. Carrying an article on a living person who simply an unfortunate non-entity, and having endless discussions that are permanently recorded all over the world-wide web, because it amuses us, or because we've some particular favoured wiki-philosophy is wrong. It is sick. It is morally unjustifiable. If we can't have a basic level of human decency, then what are we?--Docg 11:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand this - how can you decide whether the article is valid or not if no one is allowed to write it in the first place? Rockinallovertheworld 11:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't understand it, then you know too little to be usefully participating in this AfD.--Docg 11:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could have said that more nicely. Perhaps you would like to explain it for those of us who are not as intelligent or experienced as you.Rockinallovertheworld 11:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't meant to be insulting. But you said you needed the article to be written in order to decide whether it was valid. That's totally circular. I simply meant that if you haven't the basic knowledge about the subject of this debate, then it was probably better for you to leave it to those who do.--Docg 11:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I know as much about Brian Peppers as an internet meme as anyone else. It is a circular argument to say 'this article is bad therefore we cannot write it'. It's not in the spirit of wikipedia either. Let's have proper process, open the page for editing and allow events to take their own course - which may well be deletion.Rockinallovertheworld 11:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have had several attempts at an article, and when they were pruned of speculation they boiled down to "Brian Peppers is a man who was convicted of some kind of offence (details unclear), his picture appears to indicate that he has some kind of congenital deformity, people laughed at him." Oh, wait, no, we were not allowed to include that people laughed at him, because it hurt their sensitive feelings to know that they were prize jerks for laughing at someone's misfortune. We already had more versions to look at than you could want, the question is, are there more sources now than there were then, sufficient to allow an actual article which does not egregiously violate our policy on living individuals by giving undue weight to a single incident , cynical exploitation of his appearance, and uninformed speculation. The answer as far as I can tell is: no. There are, if anything, fewer sources, because some which looked as if they might in time amount, in aggregate, to something, have since been pulled. I believe even the primary source has now been pulled. Wikipedia is not YTMND or Beavis and Butthead. Guy (Help!) 11:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's open it and find out. Rockinallovertheworld 11:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not. Take you voyeurism elsewhere.--Docg 11:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF Rockinallovertheworld 12:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
or indeed pokemons or soap stars.Rockinallovertheworld 12:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, indeed, although I do not see a need to have articles on Pokémons I suspect I would be out-!voted. However, I do think popular actors and artistes would always be considered notable. Sam Blacketer 12:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break 1
  • Strong Recreate If trolling/IP vandalism is a concern, simply protect it. I'm not sure how an internet phenom is less notable than say, the huge database of porn starts we have on here. I don't see anyone rushing to delete those. --D-Day 12:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unfortunate non-entity. Porn 'stars' by definition crave publicity. The difference id fairly astounding. I'm sick of people having scholastic debates on in-house notability and refusing to consider the morality and real-world consequentialism. Shame.--Docg 12:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are controversial figures out there who do not want articles about them, but I don't see their's getting deleted. --D-Day 18:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also: please feel free to nominate for speedy deletion as many non-notable porn stars as you can find. I've deleted dozens, myself. JDoorjam JDiscourse 18:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation I can assure you I quite enjoy the publicity actually--35 M Ohio 12:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Note to closer: User's thirteenth edit.[reply]
  • This isn't how I wanted the process to go; I'd hoped there would be discussion on the article talk first (still protected at this point, although it has at least been recreated with a link to this discussion) to decide on the best course of action, or, less optimistically, at least see what the "battle lines" look like after the passage of a year. Forced to plunge directly into a vote, I reluctantly vote recreate based on my long-standing view that Peppers is marginally notable, and a reasonable (but short) article can be crafted on the basis of our limited sources to satisfy the curiosity of those who want real, neutrally-presented information and not YTMND and such things. Everyking 12:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And your response to the humanitarian argument that doing the right thing is more important than satisfying the curiosity of voyeurs?--Docg
I am not convinced that deletion is the humanitarian thing to do, if you want to look at it from that perspective; as I pointed out, Wikipedia can present a neutral article about Peppers that can serve as a reasonable and fair alternative to YTMND and the like. The Peppers meme is out there, and even if it dies soon it will probably linger for a long time, and traces of it may remain on the net for longer than we can fathom—it's not realistic to hope for total oblivion. We're just one more website in a sea of them, except we're willing to give him NPOV treatment. Everyking 13:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doc, I fully sympathise with the humanitarian arguement, but only if Wikipedia is universally ethical, or at least trys to be. There is no way on earth that this is the case. I would back you 100% if you were to try and make it so as a matter of policy. At the moment though, my thinking is that we have to be both amoral and 'aethical'. Dave 13:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FFS, that's exactly the problem. People think we need in-house rules and procedures to do the right thing. No. There's WP:IAR and even without that WP:DICK - and even without alphabet soup, just be a human being first and a wikilawyer second. Gah. --Docg 13:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But we can't be decent people while we're on Wikipedia, because there is no consistency. I feel pretty uncomfortable arguing to create the page, perhaps a bit like a defence lawyer feels in a multiple child rape/murder. But I still think it needs to be done, because perhaps something good will come of it, whether that is a more consistent deletion policy, a much stronger requirement to be ethical and apply good sense over policy, or indeed keeping the article. I believe that Brian Peppers is notable. If we're going to keep him off for ethical reasons, then so be it but we must then always try to act ethically. Dave 13:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you'd rather we were consistent and inhumane? Try thinking less like a lawyer and more like a member of the human race.--Docg 14:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather we were consistent and humane. Dave 14:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"we can't be decent people while we're on Wikipedia" Wrong. Step back a moment and think about how silly you're sounding here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're quoting Dave's words out of context - he means that the way to be decent is to have a consistent humane policy and he feels we don't currently have that. Haukur 17:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That may be a better idea. Dave 12:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Post by trolling, now blocked, sockpuppet removed.--Docg 13:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please block the above user, I know who they are in real life and they are only here to cause trouble: See their contributions, including to my user page. Dave 13:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if this source was mentioned already, but it came up in a Google News archives search: Sausage and Peppers: Creepy Sex Offender Photo Sparks Another Net Phenom, Long Island Press. Smee 13:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • I thought the same, but that's misleadingly named; I'm pretty sure it's not a newspaper. Dave 13:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The staff of the Long Island Press includes award-winning editors and writers from The New York Times, Newsday, Business Week, The Village Voice, Long Island Voice, Rolling Stone and other top publications. Our popular columnists include Ed Lowe, famous Island wide for chronicling the stories and people that define Long Island life, food critic Ron Beigel, who is also the editor of Zagat-LI, and Amy Fisher, whose column debuted to critical acclaim and has brought close to a million visitors to LongIslandPress.com. " It is an online newspaper, written by old media journalists. Sounds like a verifiable source to me. -- This is a mudkip... I heard you liek it? 15:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. LexisNexis has nothing, that's definitive in my book. Scanning the online sex offender registry is basically original research: interpreting primary sources to arrive at a novel conclusion. No independent proof of importance. Finally, for moral reasons. Are we really going to use millions of dollars in cash donations and billions of hours of donated effort to support an article on a bizarre-looking disabled man who diddled a fellow nursing home patient nine years ago? Count me out. Thatcher131 13:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Per the comments, aptly put by User:JzG, above. There simply are not enough reliable sources for citations, (yet...) Smee 13:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I could spend hours writing a good long essay on why having such an article violates verifiability policy, basic encyclopedic ethics, libel law, and essential human rights... but that would just be feeding the trolls. Besides, Guy and Doc covered all the essential points already. If some people out there have nothing better to do with their time than make fun of some random guy's physical deformity, that's too bad for them, but there's no way in hell we're giving them a platform to do it here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Huge BLP issues, tenuous verifiability at best, will be a perpetual source of vandalism and libel. Keep deleted, burned to the ground, salted, and buried under twelve tons of rubble, I say. --Slowking Man 14:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant allow recreation. I'm going to point to two things - one, the discussion at WP:AN/I earlier this week, which demonstrated that he's been noted on a television newscast and on Snopes, thus, like it or not, he meets WP:BIO with multiple reliable sources. Two, if you go on Wikitruth, they have the article there in the state it was before it was deleted, and it not only meets our standards, but does so in the best possible way. It doesn't violate any BLP ethical, moral, legal, human rights standards, and whether we like having the article or not, we look foolish for keeping it away because WP:WEDONTLIKEIT. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which version is that? The only sourced material I see is the subject's criminal background, which is very slight. Everything else is completely unsourced, and being in jail (two sources were provided for this, but...) does not make you notable under WP:BIO. --Coredesat 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't say it couldn't use extra work - I'd imagine some of the news stories came after the deletion to begin with. Regardless, he does meet WP:BIO, this shouldn't be in question by anyone, and that's ultimately all that should matter when you're talking about someone with notoriety - it's stupid to censor ourselves. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, actually, he doesn't. One of those sources was about e-SORN pulling the article, the primary subject was the idiotic reaction of people with no scruples (pretty explicitly so), the other is about the rumour that the picture was a fake, so again is not primarily about Peppers. There's no contemporaneous news coverage, and Factiva, Lexis-Nexis and Google News all come up blank. Guy (Help!) 16:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, the Snopes article is just "we found out that this is really what this picture is". It doesn't establish any notability and is a trivial source (if it weren't trivial, we'd have a lot of useless articles on a lot of the things there). --Coredesat 17:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted -- strongest opinion I have ever held about anything on Wikipedia. If there's a rule that says this poor guy must have an article then please IAR. This guy is not a vicious predator, just a sad misdemeanor offender. If anyone has ever seen a picture of his tragic deformities or read his story on the Internet, I can't believe they would want to perpetuate his story and image here. Show some humainity and please keep this article deleted unless this guy gets much more notable. --A. B. (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment -- if this article must be recreated, then please keep it fully protected. --A. B. (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and allow recreation per DXRAW, Everyking, etc. --Myles Long 14:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The mention at List of Internet phenomena is enough. (Even though people will continue to ignore the HTML comment right above the entry that says "Don't bother trying to link with [[]].") The only reason for creation of a page is that folks from sophomoric sites like YTMND and 4chan think it's cool to point and laugh. I'd support recreation only if an NPOV page were first written in userspace that clearly documented the offense (and its minor nature), and that he became a target for ridicule by immature net users solely because of a deformity he could do nothing about - and that did not include a picture. Then, the page could be moved to mainspace, fully protected, and left as is. As a regular Wikipedia page, it's just honey for the YTMND cockroaches. -- Jay Maynard 14:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - Nothing but a sensationalist semi-attack article, very little reliable information available. Wickethewok 14:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow Recreation - Simply ignoring this issue will not make it go away. If we let Brian Peppers stay deleted simply because it makes the cabal uncomfortable, than as a community, we will be continuing to reinforce the awful precedent set by the GNAA and ED debacles. Except this time, there is no question whether or not Brian Peppers is notable. And even if Jimbo doesn't feel that he qualifies as being notable in his capacity as a <BLP violation redacted>, he definitely qualifies under the category of (accidental) internet celebrity/internet phenom. I feel that I am fighting for a lost cause, but I feel that somebody should continue the fight to keep Wikipedia open and free, and restore it to its glory days. Vote to restore Brian Peppers. Vote to restore freedom. -- This is a mudkip... I heard you liek it? 15:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BLP violation redacted. Newyorkbrad 15:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above user has been blocked indefinitely, comment struck out. --Coredesat 16:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Schmucky, that is a truly terrible analogy and you know it. It might hold up if Peppers had been the subject of books, a film, discussion in medical texts, and if on decease his skeleton were on display in a museum, but that's not the case, is it? "The slightly odd-looking disabled boy, starring John Hurt" is not quite up to the same standards as The Elephant Man, I think. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a horrible analogy. The dignity argument applies to The Elephant Man. You are arguing that The Elephant Man is notable, which is true, but arguing "dignity" for removing Peppers. Those are apples and oranges criteria and that is what I'm pointing out. The dignity argument is totally false and we have no criteria for that. The only disagreement is notability. SchmuckyTheCat 19:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary section break 2
  • Keep deleted. An unfortunate but non-notable soul. Nothing has developed in the past year to increase his notability. JDoorjam JDiscourse 15:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Let's completely ignore the fact that this subject is "notable" solely due to people making fun of him. Looking at it solely from a WP:N perspective, he is not notable. One reliable secondary source? A local news story? You've got to be joking. We are beyond this sort of stupidity. Take a time machine back to 2005 if you want an encyclopedia with no standards at all. --- RockMFR 15:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per Proto. We can't say anything much verifiable about the meme, and that's what the article would have to be about, as Peppers himself (who is verifiable) is not notable. Look at Star Wars kid: it is about the meme, not about the person. Kusma (討論) 15:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted as per JzG and Angus McLellan. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Internet phenomena and protect. How does anyone think we can meet WP:BLP with an article about this guy? There's no way it could be a balanced article. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest we make it a protected redirect to Crouzon syndrome. The only reason anyone wants to see Peppers is because he Looks Weird, so let's send 'em where they want to be. DS 16:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That wouldn't be a good redirect target. Among other things, we don't even know if Crouzon is what he has. The Snopes article says it might be Apert's or Crouzon, but who knows? Again, it's clear that even the most basic facts about Mr. Peppers aren't known or verifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • DragonflySixtyseven went ahead and created the redirect (with the edit summary "I am acting unilaterally here; however, I am open to negotiation post facto if anyone has a better idea.") A better idea is to wait for the deletion review's conclusion instead of "acting unilaterally." Fulfilling the desire of those who wish to see an individual of disputed notability (who isn't mentioned in the article, but probably will be soon) "because he looks weird" arguably goes against the spirit of the deletion that remains under review. We had this as a protected red link, and now it's a blue link that can be used to extend the disgusting ridicule to a medical condition that Brian Peppers might or might not have (in the interest of placating the gawkers). I doubt that this is what the contributor of this child's photograph had in mind. —David Levy 17:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion There are numerous reasons, and I remember this being on Wikipedia in 2005: but, the facts are this:

He is not notable: for now, anyway.
Unless you can find reliable sources for this, that keep within WP:BLP (biographies of living persons), then it should be kept deleted. The fact single-purpose accounts are arguing for it to be kept here, only adds more reason to keep it deleted. As it is, if people want to see it, well, I hate to say this, but Wikitruth has it (gleaned from a Wikipedia mirror or database dump, presumably). Add to that the fact that none of the article is reliably-sourced, and there are no third-party, independent, verifiable and reliable sources to it, and this explains why the article should be kept deleted. Also, it is morally and socially wrong to mock those who have disabilities too, but sadly people do this. However, Wikipedia does not work to deadlines - so time limitation is not a factor that should be taken into account. Apologies for the length of this piece, but I hope it explains it well enough for all readers. --sunstar nettalk 17:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted per various other "keep deleted" recommendations above. His status as a supposed "internet phenomenon" has not brought him to mainstream attention on the Internet or elsewhere. He does not meet any WP:BIO criteria. WP:SOMEBODYLIKESLAUGHINGATHIM is not a good reason to have an article. --Metropolitan90 17:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Internet phenomena per WP:V. We have reliable sources about the person -- basic biographical info, and the details of the crime he was convicted of. However, the person himself is clearly nonnotable -- I can do a search and find that there are 3 or 4 sex offenders just in my apartment complex, and they all did worse things than Brian Peppers ever did. The only thing possibly notable here is the internet phenomenon, and so to have an article we need reliable sources about the internet phenomenon. We don't. All we have is a Snopes article (which is nothing but restating the biographical info with some speculation thrown in) and one article from a local TV station. That's not really any better than a mention in The Scotsman and some pictures in the background of a CNN story. Dave6 talk 17:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. We've had considerable time considering what kind of notability this person exhibits. The answer is, so far, none. We wouldn't need to discuss the rest of the issues if we handled that one. Sorry, I'm kind of caffeine-imbalanced now so I can't make a longer ramble out of this, but that's basically where my point boils down to... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted/endorse deletion: to copy and paste from my post at WP:AN: [START POST] Google news and archives reveal two unreliable sources. Snopes does provide some helpful, verifiable information, but maintaining this article for a marginally notable man and continuously fighting against unsourced memes doesn't seem to be worth it. [END POST] I still hold this position, and believe that even mentioning Brian Peppers as an internet meme is not an example of a biography of a living person being treated delicately. Notability concerns, then, are also major. Nearly no reliable sources can back the internet meme phenomenon, and if other reliable sources that exist establish this guy as notable, then several people that I know are "notable" as well. GracenotesT § 17:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. - WP:BLP says "In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." WAS 4.250 17:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Recreate. Jimbo's arbitrary censorship of this topic has done nothing good for Wikipedia or Mr. Peppers. The Brian Peppers internet meme (as opposed to Brian Peppers the person) is at least as notable as articles on pokemons, local railway stations, porn starlets and episodes of South Park currently cluttering up this project. Let's be grown up - remove the censorship and follow due process. 4kinnel 18:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of internet phenomena and protect it. The fact of various people's obsession with Mr. Peppers is at least as notable as anything on that list; it is also the only thing notable about him. Since there are valid concerns that including any more about Mr. Peppers would be (bluntly) an asshole move on our part, just keeping it as a redirect is the best option. Gavia immer 19:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate. Notable figure, at worst should have a redirect to the List of Internet phenomena page. However, I am more interested in a clear statement that we "supporters" of the Peppers article will not be labeled all the negative names that some of the "keep deleted" people here threw at us a year ago in what was one of the poorest examples of discourse I've seen on this site. That was insulting, disgraceful and unWikpedian. Alas, that troubling discussion was deleted without a trace by some of the very same people who described us in those highly negative, insulting terms --not much evidence is left. --Bobak 19:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_21/Brian_Peppers&oldid=1142605326"