m sorry about that |
reopened per consensus on ANI... |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | : '''Note''': ''Prior to this 6th nomination for deletion, a '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=39425380#Brian_Peppers deletion review]''' took place on [[WP:DRV]] between 7 February 2006 –13 February 2006, resulting in '''25 endorsing deletion''', '''22 requesting undeletion''', and '''2 neutrally-phrased suggestions'''. The closure of this nomination |
||
⚫ | |||
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> |
|||
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. '' |
|||
⚫ | |||
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> |
|||
The result of the debate was speedy delete as repost of deleted content without prejudice regarding its eventual fate. This has been deleted four times via afd and once via DRV, and repetitive discussions are considered harmful. If and when there is consensus to restore this article than this discussion would be appropiate, but not until then. - [[User:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#000000">brenneman</font>]][[User Talk:Aaron Brenneman|<font color="#000000"><sup>{T}</sup></font>]]<span class="plainlinks">[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman<font color="000000" title="Admin actions"><sup>'''{L}''' </sup></font>]</span> 01:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
===[[Brian Peppers|Brian Peppers (6th nomination)]]=== |
===[[Brian Peppers|Brian Peppers (6th nomination)]]=== |
||
It has recently been brought to my attention that members of Wikipedia have been the subject of an ongoing internet hoax perpetrated by a gang of unscrupulous juveniles, and that as a result, our own article for '''[[Brian Peppers]]''' was deleted in the best of faith by [[User:UninvitedCompany]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Peppers&oldid=38492906] under false pretenses. |
It has recently been brought to my attention that members of Wikipedia have been the subject of an ongoing internet hoax perpetrated by a gang of unscrupulous juveniles, and that as a result, our own article for '''[[Brian Peppers]]''' was deleted in the best of faith by [[User:UninvitedCompany]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Peppers&oldid=38492906] under false pretenses. |
||
Line 87: | Line 76: | ||
* '''Comment''': Does anyone want to comment on the possible legal implications of the "terms and conditions" of the Ohio Sex Offenders database on Wikipedia [http://www.esorn.ag.state.oh.us/Secured/g1.aspx]? --[[User:Hamiltonian|Hamiltonian]] 01:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC) |
* '''Comment''': Does anyone want to comment on the possible legal implications of the "terms and conditions" of the Ohio Sex Offenders database on Wikipedia [http://www.esorn.ag.state.oh.us/Secured/g1.aspx]? --[[User:Hamiltonian|Hamiltonian]] 01:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC) |
||
⚫ | |||
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.</div> |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | : '''Note''': ''Prior to this 6th nomination for deletion, a '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=39425380#Brian_Peppers deletion review]''' took place on [[WP:DRV]] between 7 February 2006 –13 February 2006, resulting in '''25 endorsing deletion''', '''22 requesting undeletion''', and '''2 neutrally-phrased suggestions'''. The closure of this nomination was discussed at [[WP:ANI]] '''[[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Brian_Peppers|here]]''' as consensus said to relist on AFD this has now been done. |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
<font color="#ee7700" size="2"><b>This AFD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line.</b></font> [[User:Alkivar|<font color="#FA8605">'''ALKIVAR'''</font>]][[User_talk:Alkivar|™]][[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 18:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
Revision as of 18:09, 15 February 2006
Brian Peppers (6th nomination)
It has recently been brought to my attention that members of Wikipedia have been the subject of an ongoing internet hoax perpetrated by a gang of unscrupulous juveniles, and that as a result, our own article for Brian Peppers was deleted in the best of faith by User:UninvitedCompany [1] under false pretenses.
For a number of months now, there has been a rash of people attempting to poison our memetic articles, including but not limited to the Brian Peppers article, with false information. These nefarious folk have been fraudulently posing as close friends and/or relatives of Peppers, such as "Allen Peppers" [2], and submitting fake emails pretending to represent him. These same people have gone as far as to impersonate Brian Peppers at his expense, creating profiles on virtual community sites like MySpace, LiveJournal, and others.
The {{deletepage}} template clearly states that "This page has been deleted, and should not be re-created without a good reason." and I believe that under these, and other circumstances which I am about to explain, good reason exists for this article to be undeleted and brought to Articles for deletion for broader discussion.
It should first be noted that this is the 6th time now that this article has been brought to AFD, the most recent being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Peppers 5 by User:Nlu on December 18, 2005. That AFD was closed out by User:Mailer Diablo on December 24, 2005 with a no consensus verdict leaning towards keep. The overall tally of the fifth AFD was: 42 keeps, 22 deletes, 1 discounted keep by an anonymous user, and 1 neutral-oriented remark, phrased "do not speedily delete". Prior AFD discussions were irrelevant, as earlier versions of the article were nonsense or attack pages, rightfully deleted under our established speedy deletion criteria, whereas the article discussed in nomination #5 was a rewrite from scratch, not a repost of previously deleted content.
Similar cases or precedents on Wikipedia which should be taken into careful consideration during this discussion include:
- Ashida Kim (living person, requested article deletion) [3]
- Bartcop (living person, requested article modification) [4]
- Chuck Norris (living person, unwilling subject of a meme, frequently vandalised) [5]
- Daniel Brandt (living person, requested article deletion) [6]
- Numa Numa (living person, unwilling subject of a meme) [7]
- O RLY? (internet meme plagued with hoaxing, frequently vandalised) [8]
- Star Wars kid (living person, unwilling subject of a meme) [9]
- Tron (hacker) (deceased person, family requested article modification) [10]
The Brian Peppers meme has caught the attention of a local Fox TV station, and it has been suggested by their investigators that the state of Ohio may overturn their publication methods as a direct result of these childish exploits of their sex offender database. Snopes has also documented the meme, confirming much of what already exists in the Wikipedia article. While Google does return over 154,000 matches for the name, [11] much of what remains is both unreliable and unhelpful to a reader interested in learning more about this subject upon discovery of the meme.
This could be an excellent opportunity for Wikipedia to shine by demonstrating our ability to present information of interest to the public in a neutral and verifiable fashion. May the members of Wikipedia decide.
Note: In addition to the above it should also be noted that the first four AfDs ended in delete, as did deletion review on the fifth. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 00:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- No vote as the facilitator of this renomination. Hall Monitor 21:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Brian Peppers is a celebrity to which dozens of sites have been devoted. As stated above, this should be seen as an opportunity to present factual, NPOV information on both the actual individual, and the Brian Peppers "meme" that has hit sites like [12]. I find it intellectually revolting that certain people on Wikipedia so often "cop out" on controversial subjects by labeling them as not being notable and ignoring their obvious (although dubious) celebrity status. Ashida Kim is a perfect example of this. It is astounding how many people assume that just because they haven't heard of someone, then that person is obviously not deserving of an article. It is the symptop of a phenomenon that undermines the effectiveness of Wikipedia as a medium for Human knowledge; a lack of sincere objectivity and focus on the goal of compiling that knowledge for the benefit of everyone whether or not they chose to accept the facts on a subject. --Phrost 22:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Rather than taking into account the "family request", I would keep in mind the Wikipedia guideline for biographies of living non-public figures: "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of credible, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. However, there are also biographies of persons who, while marginally notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, Wikipedia editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. (example snipped) In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." Because wikipedia still hasn't come up with some standards as to the notability for non-public internet meme-type figures, I will vote later keeping this guideline in mind. --Hamiltonian 22:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- IMO, regardless of how many times you submit it as an AfD, the Wiki community will want to keep it. Let it drop. My vote is to keep. James Kendall [talk] 22:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - non-notable bio. --Sunfazer (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. I can't believe this is still being nominated. Brian Peppers is very popular in many internet communities, most notably YTMND and Something Awful. --Liface 22:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Editors, and even sysops, should not be the point of contact for the legal status of an article, very few of us are lawyers, and those that are do not represent Wikipeida (afaik). Wikipedia was not sued or even threated legally by Mr. Peppers. If this were to happen we would hear about it and the decision would not me one the editors of Wikipedia would be making, it would be up to the board. I am voting to keep because a precedence for an article being deleted based on legal dealings with an editor would be a very poor one to set. As to the question of "public figure" status, see the long list posted by nom of others who might not have wanted an article about them on wikipedia. If Mr. Peppers does not want an article then his best course of action would be having a lawyer send a letter to the foundation on his behalf. Short of that, we will never be able to verify that it is infact him making the request. —A 22:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I feel this article is questionable and I think this should be dealt with via WP:AN/I. --Sunfazer (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. With the last nomination resulting in 42 keep to 22 delete, this whole debate should be over by now, the subject is notable end of story. Silensor 22:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- And? Based on this logic, this article should have been speedied a long time ago as recreation of deleted content. This went through multiple deletion votes before and was deleted multiple times. Perhaps I should have just speedied it back then rather than resubmit it to a vote at that time. --Nlu (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Clearly brian peppers has reached notability by now. Once a deletion nomination has failed a certain number of times, shouldn't it be... unnominateable? --Xyzzyplugh 22:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable and for the reasons I have expressed before. Please consider that this person's entry keeps getting kept because so many people state that he is a "popular internet meme." In fact, other than the Snopes article, this person is not known. Wikipedia is not supposed to be self-referential, i.e., someone's bio is placed on Wikipedia because he is notable. But in this instance, placing his bio on Wikipedia makes him notable. The Wiki is the medium. Consider also that unlike the Numa Numa guy, this person did not ask for this. The laws governing sex offender registries have not been around long enough for the Courts to provide some definitive guidance, and it's quite possible that the law requiring that this picture be posted will eventually be deemed unconstitutional. Where would that leave this entry? Is Wikipedia looking at litigation down the road, something narrowly averted in the John Siegenthaler case. Unlike the governmental agencies that post sex offender information, Wikipedia does not enjoy any immunity. If the sex offender registries were thrown out, would I represent this guy? Sure would. Wikipedia is invading his privacy for no reason other than the prurient amusement of the P.T. Barnum audience. Better get moving on that fundraising, that money may well be needed. Jtmichcock 22:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Have you even looked at the other comments? Peppers was well-known on Something Awful way before this article was even written. --Liface 22:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- FYI, I have "even" looked at the other comments. The only high visibility site besides Wikipedia to have this featured is Snopes. By high visibility, of course, I a speaking of what is known as "Deep Pockets." Like I said, how much are you willing to pony up for the fundraiser?Jtmichcock 23:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Coverage is not limited to Wikipedia and Snopes. FOX News in Toledo, Ohio also ran a story on Brian Peppers on November 28, 2005. Hall Monitor 23:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- And that is why Fox News should not be considered a serious news source. --Nlu (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Setting aside the editorial on Fox News, what the report is about is a person who is being deliberately targetted and villified and who, because the information is public record, is likely to end up injured or killed by some mouth breather. Wouldn't it be nice if Wikipedia had a motto like Google (and actually mean it) that the site should do no evil? Jtmichcock 00:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- That's not even FOX News - it's ONE local news station, that's it. Not FOX News Channel - just a local TV station looking for a quick ratings hit with sensationalistic crap. Nobody else covered it. FCYTravis 01:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Coverage is not limited to Wikipedia and Snopes. FOX News in Toledo, Ohio also ran a story on Brian Peppers on November 28, 2005. Hall Monitor 23:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- FYI, I have "even" looked at the other comments. The only high visibility site besides Wikipedia to have this featured is Snopes. By high visibility, of course, I a speaking of what is known as "Deep Pockets." Like I said, how much are you willing to pony up for the fundraiser?Jtmichcock 23:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Brian Peppers is not a celebrity, he is a disabled man with a congenital deformity who a bunch of sick fucks have seen fit to make an object of derision. At least the article now provides enough information for that to be clear. I don't give a toss about Daniel Brandt, I do care about the lambasting of Brian Peppers and this project being implicated in perpetuating the "meme". Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- No one is deriding him. They are simply having fun at his expense. --Liface 22:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- In the legal world "having fun at his expense" is typically rephrased as "intentional infliction of emotional distress." Jtmichcock 23:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- And "deride" means "treat with contemptuous mirth" - i.e. make fun of. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 23:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. He is not notable enough to meet WP:BIO for mine. This is an infringement of this man's privacy simply to "have fun at his expense". I would hope that Wikipedia would have a higher purpose than mocking people with disabilities. Capitalistroadster 23:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per nom. --Myles Long 23:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Repeated ad nauseum. Brian Peppers is an Internet fad. --Tokachu 23:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Correct. Fad as in short-lived. And "ad nauseam" doesn't really apply when some previous AfDs have resulted in delete, and the article has been re-created. I freely admit that the Peppers fad offends my liberal sympathies. Laughing at the disabled and deformed seems to me to say more about those doing the laughing than about the object of their derision. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 23:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete (in the strongest terms possible). Absolutely no reason for this to belong in an encyclopedia. --Nlu (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per Just zis guy. Lukas (T.|@) 00:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. While the hoax may indeed have been cruel and needless, the current article is neither; it is informative and presents a neutral point of view. The fact of a mentally disabled person being convicted of a sex crime against his caregiver has wide-ranging implications for law and health policy and is inherently notable; mentions in the press satisfy WP:BIO. Ikkyu2 00:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment as is clear from the Internet fad article, wikipedia has many articles on topics which are on the same level of notability as Brian Peppers, and these are not being proposed for deletion. So if this is going to be deleted, let's be clear that it's being deleted because people disapprove of the article. If we're going to delete articles because we disapprove of those that make fun of odd looking people, then so be it, but let's admit that's what we're doing. --Xyzzyplugh 00:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- THat is the "some cruft exists, therefore no cruft may be deleted" argument, and is not persuasive. Feel free to nominate that other cruft for deletion. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 00:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not making that arguement, as I don't believe internet fads are non-notable. Do you believe that most of the Internet Memes/Internet Fad articles should be deleted? If you and others here voting Delete really do, then I expect to see a few hundred of them nominated for Deletion in the next few days, now that I have pointed out this vast collection of non-notable articles. If this doesn't happen, I will assume I am correct, that the notability of Brian Peppers is not why this article has been nominated for deletion. --Xyzzyplugh 01:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- I actually think that most of the internet fads listed are non-notable. Perhaps they could be mentioned in a larger article about internet fads, but to have their own article is just silly. Most are just in-jokes among a certain small internet community that aren't nearly as widespread as a Google search would have you believe (for instance 55% of the hits for Brian Peppers originate solely from YTMND.com. I think Wikipedia is in desperate need of some sort of notability criteria for interent fads, particularly for living, non-public figures (this extends beyond Peppers). The problem with internet memes is that Wikipedia reporting on them implicates it in the mimetic process, so especially stringent standards for notability need to be set, I believe. --Hamiltonian 01:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Xyzzyplugh is correct in calling a spade a spade here. If our decisions have any precential value (a whole ball of wax), disappoval is no reason to delete articles. Based on precedent, this has more reason to keep than many others that have been kept. Carlossuarez46 00:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete per Guy and Jtmichcock. Even with the article in its (temporarily?) less noisome state, he's non-notable. —rodii 00:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep this time, next time and every time it's nominated. All human knowledge -- not just those parts we approve of. Grace Note 00:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- The key term here is knowledge. Precisely what, after reading the article and clicking the links made you more knowledgeable? I'll change my vote to keep if anyone posts their name, address, home phone and social security number (genuine only, to be sure). Isn't this the type of "knowledge" Wikipedia should have? Because I assure you, I would benefit more with my knowledge of your name, address and SSN than I could do after reading the article. Jtmichcock 01:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think you need a lie down, son. I had no idea who this guy was before reading the article. Now I do. Very interesting. I find Wikipedia almost useless in just about every sphere bar trivia, in which it is profoundly useful. It's a mystery to me why some people spend their days trying to rid Wikipedia of the very thing it excels in. Grace Note 01:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Brian Peppers has not personally sued anyone or anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.80.113 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, it would be futile to try and write an article about every registered sex offender.Bjones 00:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, notable internet phenomenon, so much so he has an entry on snopes. http://allenpeppersfinal.ytmnd.com/ conclusively proves that "Allen Peppers" was a hoax (watch right to end). His fame has only increased since the previous AfDs. the wub "?!" 01:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. Yes, he became a feature on the internet because of his looks. Yes, he is a meme on websites such as YTMND and Snopes. However, from what I can tell, most people are trying to write about him as a person, not the meme. What I can suggest is to write a little bit about Peppers, his "internet fame" and also about the steps the State of Ohio and other states that have taken because of what some "sick fucks" have done with this. We had many people who gone missing and killed, but we have articles on them due to laws and methods being passed due to the tragic events (Megan's Law, Jessica's Law, Laci and Connor's Law, AMBER Alert). While, of course, this article will be hit with much vandalism, we should do everything we can to make this article a somewhat decent article, but keep it out of stub status. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 01:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- There is no secondary source information available to take this out of stub status. The article as it stands is as big as it will ever get, because he has not been the subject of any reporting from verifiable and reliable sources, other than Snopes and the single, now-gone local Toledo news station. We've said all we can say without forbidden original research. FCYTravis 01:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strongest Possible Keep Offensiveness of the topic matter does not matter in any conceivable way; our job is only to present notable information, verifiably and neutrally. The last AfD clearly showed that he is notable enough for an article, and, per The wub, that hasn't decreased since then. Deleting this article now would be a blow to process, essentially encouraging renominating articles for deletion just because one didn't get his or her way the first time around. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 01:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Does anyone want to comment on the possible legal implications of the "terms and conditions" of the Ohio Sex Offenders database on Wikipedia [13]? --Hamiltonian 01:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Note: Prior to this 6th nomination for deletion, a deletion review took place on WP:DRV between 7 February 2006 –13 February 2006, resulting in 25 endorsing deletion, 22 requesting undeletion, and 2 neutrally-phrased suggestions. The closure of this nomination was discussed at WP:ANI here as consensus said to relist on AFD this has now been done.
This AFD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. ALKIVAR™ 18:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)