Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Peppers (6th nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JzG (talk | contribs) at 11:28, 18 July 2006 (unlinking weblinks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was 1, 2, 3... (40 keep/23 delete/2 other/1 disq.) no consensus, defaults to keep. This conclusion refers to the subject of the article, not the article itself.

I think the best compromise to put this messy past behind us is to give it a fresh start, (with unprotection) and let Wikipedians rewrite a neutral and verifiable version. If there are libellous/disparaging additions, delete only these edits, not the entire article. If it's vandalised, then revert on sight, and keep a watch on the article. - Mailer Diablo 01:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Peppers (6th nomination)

This AFD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion at the bottom.  ALKIVAR™ 18:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article's content is available for review on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/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.

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" allenpeppersfinal.ytmnd.com/, 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 {{deletedpage}} 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:

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, www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Brian+Peppers%22&btnG=Google+Search 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.

  • No vote as the facilitator of this renomination. Hall Monitor 21:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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 ytmnd.com. 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable bio. --Sunfazer (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And that is why Fox News should not be considered a serious news source. --Nlu (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
No one is deriding him. They are simply having fun at his expense. --Liface 22:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
JzG, you're usually the definition of reasonableness, but in this case I don't see that you're commenting on the merits of the article in question. The current article - not the one that was deleted 4 times already - is written in a neutral point of view, asserts reasons for notability, is referenced in a verifiable way, and does not contain vulgarity nor original research. If you're going to make a history of cruelty grounds for deletion of otherwise encyclopedic content, why not aim high and take down Adolf Hitler or Holocaust? ikkyu2 (talk) 05:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep per nom. --Myles Long 23:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Repeated ad nauseum. Brian Peppers is an Internet fad. --Tokachu 23:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete (in the strongest terms possible). Absolutely no reason for this to belong in an encyclopedia. --Nlu (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Just zis guy. Lukas (T.|@) 00:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete, it would be futile to try and write an article about every registered sex offender.Bjones 00:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable internet phenomenon, so much so he has an entry on snopes. 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Comment: Does anyone want to comment on the possible legal implications of the "terms and conditions" of the Ohio Sex Offenders database on Wikipedia www.esorn.ag.state.oh.us/Secured/g1.aspx? --Hamiltonian 01:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 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)[reply]

  • Delete, per JZG and others. PJM 18:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can not support facilitating the abuse of a living person just because he became famous through such abuse. Thatcher131 18:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your view, but similarly, I can not support Wikipedia pretending that something does not exist just because it is cruel or highlights a side of human nature I'm not happy about. --Ashenai 19:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FFS, this is a lot to wade through. I don't really care about the excruciating minutae of process that has lead to a 6th AfD of an article that can't even be viewed for consideration... Let's just start from scratch and summarize for anyone who doesn't want to do the history lesson: Brian Peppers is apparently a real person, convicted of a sex-offense in Ohio, who became an internet meme www.snopes.com/photos/people/peppers.asp in 2005 and subsequently had an wikipedia article written about him. The article has been a magnet for vandalization and been the subject of deletion and some rather contentous bickering amongst administrators.
In my opinion, Peppers falls short of WP:BIO as a person. As a meme, it's a bit harder to peg. There was a lot of chatter about him last year for a while, but I'm not sure this reached the Star Wars Kid or Flying Spaghetti Monster level or that it is anyway current. If he reaches notability at all, it's only as a meme. I'll leave any judgements on how shitty it is to meme someone because of physical deformity to the individual... but that's not really a consideration for keep or delete. Abstain for now, but leaning delete for lack of notability.--Isotope23 18:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, I just don't see any evidence of current notability as a meme. Thanks to JzG for posting the text to be considered.--Isotope23 19:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the interests of debate I've placed the content as deleted on the Talk page. It also highlights one of my concerns: some of the pertinent facts, like the fact that the reported victim was apparently his nurse/carer, were removed altogether, as was the fact that it was well known early on in the spread of the alleged meme that he was a sufferer from a congenital deformity; this was also moved down to "Snopes says" from being in the first para as being "consistent with Apert or Crouzon" (which it is). In other words, any attempt to document the fact that YTMND and Fark were clearly having fun at the expense of a man they knew to be a disabled sufferer from a congenital deformity, posing no threat to anybody as far as anyone can tell, rather than being some kind ofg predatory monster, may be hard to maintain in the face of determined editing from those who prefer the freakshow to the fact that this guy is just some poor sod who lost life's lottery before he even started. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with that is the problem that faces the whole article - not verifiable. I have yet to see a verifiable source which reports who his victim was, or what his disability is. We can conjecture all we like, but there are no verifiable or reliable sources which report any details of the case. All we have is a mug shot, confirmation that he was convicted of some minor sex offence, and confirmation that small-minded schoolyard brats laughed at him on teh Intarwebs. None of that in any way add up to encyclopedicity or notability. Which means that the article doesn't belong on Wikipedia. FCYTravis 19:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stupid meme, but a meme nonetheless. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 19:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable and verifiable Internet meme. --Ashenai 19:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this meme is notable by itself Yuckfoo 19:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The current version of this article makes it seem as if he is in Wikipedia because he is a sex offender and/or his appearance. I suggest reverting to a different version that does not make it seem this way. Please do not vote based on this common misconception of why he is on Wikipedia- He is on wikipedia because he is the subject of a notable internet meme- No more, no less. VegaDark 03:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, and he is the subject of a stupid and non-notable Internet meme why? Oh, that's right - because of his appearance and the fact that he's a sex offender. No matter how hard you try to get away from that fact, it's going to keep coming back to that. FCYTravis 19:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone could be the subject of an internet meme for any or no reason. The reason is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, he is the subject of a notable internet meme. It is illogical to argue against reasons that nobody is asserting - saying he shouldn't be on Wikipedia because of his looks or his sex offender status is like saying Michael Jackson shouldn't be on Wikipedia simply because he had a ton of plastic surgery - Nobody logical would argue that he should be on Wikipedia based on that fact, and just like that the argument is irrelevant to why Brian Peppers is on Wikipedia. VegaDark 03:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was going to knee-jerk vote "keep" here, but reading the above discussion has changed my mind. First of all, being a common sex offender does not make one notable enough for wikipedia. Neither does being disabled, unless a person makes it an issue as either an activist for awareness or by making a career out of being different. There is no indication that Peppers has willingly done either. Additonally, we, as internet users, tend to take ourselves a bit too seriously. Just because we hang out at online communities like something awful, fark, YTMND, or even wikipedia does not make things that happen there notable to the rest of civilization. This is an inherent form of systemic bias on wikipedia: we are all internet users. Therefore, we tend to think that something that pops up a few places online is notable, when in fact it is not. youngamerican (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said everything I could want to say about this case, far better than I could. Thank you. FCYTravis 20:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I never actually voted in the last round, just commented. Here are my reasons (re-written from comments I have left on his talk page): (1) Non-notability: While Peppers may appear to have a certain notability within certain limited communities, it does not appear to have spread beyond a local Fox station's newscast in Ohio. Using a major newspaper database covering over 25 major, English-language national newspapers from around the world, and over 200 regional newspapers, not a single mention of Brian Peppers appears. While 88,800 hits do appear on Google, 48,800 (~55%) come just from the ytmnd.com domain. This might indicate that it is appropriate for inclusion on List of YTMND fads. (Note that this list of fads summarizes each entry in an appropriate one or two line summary.) Indeed, he is already listed on this page. Perhaps a simple re-direct would do? 2. Non-public living person biography: His non-notability is compounded by his status as a non-public living person (which itself is a different issue from notability). See these guidelines. (Peppers is different, say, than the Star Wars Kid because mainstream media references are plentiful for him.) 3. Possible legal implications for Wikipedia: I believe that there are serious, unresolved questions regarding the possible legal implications of the "terms and conditions" of the Ohio Sex Offenders database for Wikipedia www.esorn.ag.state.oh.us/Secured/g1.aspx. I'm not talking about privacy implications - I'm talking about the specific use of data from the eSORN. Were something to happen, and it could be tied to the information provided by Wikipedia, I'm curious may be liability on Wikipedia's part. 4. Mimetic implications: The nature of internet memes is that they become more well-known with their spread. Wikipedia must be careful not to help to spread memes, but only report on ones that have already reached sufficient critical mass to be included. For the reasons above, I submit that it has not (no mainstream media coverage being first among them). By analogy, it would be like Wikipedia helping to break a news story - not the role of an encyclopedia even under its broadest definition. --Hamiltonian 20:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Excellent nom among the best I've ever seen. I also agree with Grace Note and Ikkyu2. -- JJay 20:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes it will need to be monitored, but I don't know the story of Mr. Peppers, although I've heard of him. I know he's infamous, and Wikipedia would be the first place I'd check. James Kendall [talk] 20:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Utterly non-notable, with invasion of privacy concerns to boot. Yet another example of Wikipedia's over-representation of Random Internet Crap. Anyone who wants to is free to go start a wikicities site for internet fads. Friday (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons stated at DRV. There is just no way we can delete this article on request. This meme is notable -- we don't have an article on him because he's goofy, we have an article because he's the subject of a popular meme. Second, we can't delete by request based on our sympathies. What about Daniel Brandt, and Boris Floricic? Daniel, and Boris' alleged estate, have both asked Wikipedia to redact information. We lose a chunk of credibility if we flip-flop on this, and it wouldn't surprise me if it affected our ability to defend against litigation too. And thirdly -- yes, Mr. Peppers is unfortunate. But of all the sites that mention him, how many will ever update to reflect anything good, positively notable, or remarkable he may do in the future? Probably just Wikipedia. Delete, and as far as the Internet is concerned, he'll be the goofy guy from the photo, forever. For these and other reasons, I have to say keep. User:Adrian/zap2.js 21:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Nothing to do with "on request", not by me anyway. This is a person who would still be utterly unknown (as opposed to utterly unknown outside YTMND and Fark) if it weren't for his appearance. I signed up for an encyclopaedia, not a freak show whose participants neither give consent nor receive payment for their ritual humiliation. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
so you'd agree to remove Star Wars Kid on the same basis? Carlossuarez46 23:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Star Wars Kid's parents hired an attorney, spoke publicly and became the focus of a major public controversy, with lawsuits and mass media coverage. That makes him encyclopedic. Nothing of the sort is true in this case. There has been no coverage outside of a single brief story on a local TV station Web site. No lawsuits. No public controversy. Just infantile idiots laughing at someone on teh Interwebs. If and when Brian Peppers gets parodied on Arrested Development, I'd agree that the case would become encyclopedic. But it hasn't, so such comparisons are invalid. FCYTravis 23:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Star Wars Kid and Brian Peppers are not even in the same universe of meme notability. The Day Peppers is as pervasive a meme as SWK, I'll change my vote.--Isotope23 00:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I ever personally implicated JzG. As for the rest, my comments stand. User:Adrian/zap2.js 06:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
There is an important difference, in that Peppers played no part whatsoever in the spread of the meme. Another important difference is that between "look at the idiot" and "look at the freak". Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 13:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Everyking 22:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete violation of privacy and common sense Fred Bauder 23:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable meme. There are serious ramifications to unilaterally deleting articles because a family member asks us to, not to mention the potential chilling effect this could have on the entire encyclopedia. Yamaguchi先生 01:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia should not accede to the morally deformed mocking the physically deformed. Monicasdude 01:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most internet memes autoterminate with respect to notability. Generally not suitable for inclusion unless national newspaper-scale coverage achieved. Minor issues are the distasteful thing of it all. JFW | T@lk 02:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Once again I pull up the Ate my balls argument. If AMB has its own page and survived a VfD, but was a significantly less important and smaller meme than Brian Peppers is, I see no reason for this article to be deleted. ShadowMan1od 02:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Achieved sufficient notability as an Internet meme; the article is not really about the person at all (his biography is not all that interesting), but about the meme (however, "Brian Peppers Internet meme" would be a clumsy title). Internet memes are a valid encyclopedic topic, and the ones that achieve wide notability should be documented for posterity, to show one aspect of the social evolution of what will come to be known as the early days of the Internet. We also cover the Star Wars kid, who achieved notability unwillingly (that has also been through AfD and was a keep; I hope no one will try to speedy it). For what it's worth, there are many persons who achieved notability unwillingly (Carlie Brucia for instance). If the man's appearance is a sensitive issue, well, we don't actually need to reproduce the photo (just link to the government website), and from what I can see, the last version of the article prior to deletion did just that. -- Curps 02:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For god's sake, keep a thousand times already. We need to have a serious discussion on internet memes, stat. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Per all the reasons I have said everywhere else, including the fact Brian Peppers gets www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-25,GGLD:en&q=%22Brian+Peppers%22 92,200 Google hits, showing that he is in fact notable, and should be included in Wikipedia if we want our encyclopedia to be as complete and helpful as it can be. VegaDark 03:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've said enough on this matter already.--Aleron235 03:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for all the reasons everybody else has said --Cornflake pirate 06:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh Christ on crutch, just delete the damned thing already. --Calton | Talk 07:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. As having first encountered Brian Peppers a time ago, I first believed he was a photoshopped individual created as part of some hoax. With a recent influx of popularity among certain individuals on the internet, I became curious as to the history of this image. I came here to find that the article had been deleted, and had to go to Google to discover information, which I ended up learning at Snopes. Fidsah 07:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compromise with a PERMANENT Merge and Redirect to List of YTMND Fads. Having an article making fun of ANYONE here is unencyclopedic. It is also unfair for someone to access the Brian Peppers page and be treated with something that makes them feel like Wikipedia spit in their faces. We need to reach a permanent consensus on this, and clearly each side has a lot of vocal supporters. We all need to give up some of the freedoms we have here in order to make Wikipedia operate smoothly. Keep the article itself protected, but leave it as a redirect page, not a "YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS ARTICLE! LOLZ!!!!" page. I'm sure there are keepists and deletionists who will agree with this. Crazyswordsman 08:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirecting would be not be advised, this meme is known well outside of YTMND. Yamaguchi先生 08:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? A lot of the stuff on the List of YTMND fads is known outside YTMND. But none of it is encyclopedic or verifiable enough to expand beyond what's there. Just like this case. I Support said compromise. FCYTravis 09:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is good you can reach some sort of compromise, but what is meant by my comment is this meme is used frequently outside of YTMND, including Something Awful, Fark and many other places on the internet, it is not in any way limited to YTMND and would be inappropriate to redirect it there. Yamaguchi先生 09:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems both encyclopedic and verifiable enough to me. I agree with Yamaguchi. Should be its own article. No redirect/merge, please. --Ashenai 09:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about Brian's encyclopedic value (and, to be fair, I think it's a gray area. The meme is, but the sex offender part is not, which is why I support the merging), it's about ending this seemingly endless debate in a way that's fair to all. Crazyswordsman 04:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Vandalism and request of subject or relatives of subject are not reasons for deletion, and given that we have already been subject to a co-ordinated political campaign to delete unflattering information from clearly notable biographies, it sets a very dangerous precedent if "someone sent us an email" becomes a CSD. Moreover it undermines one of our best policies, that being WP:LEGAL - say you'll sue us over an article and we'll block you, but tell us that you're the subject's wife and you'd really like it taken down and we'll speedy delete it. Clearly a notable meme, whether Wikipedians like it or not, and I believe we should keep those. This is an online encyclopaedia and people are going to search for notable memes here. --Malthusian (talk) 09:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Wikipedia material for sure! bbx 09:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per excellent nom. None of the many deletion reasons seem valid. The strongest is non-notability. But Snopes discounts that. Deleting because we don't like the content? There's enough variety on Wikipedia that almost everyone should be offended about one article or another, or not like the content. Because somebody supposedly related wants it removed? That should never be a reason. Because of legal fears? Let's make a policy then, and stop playing armchair attorney. Because he hasn't seeked more publicity, or because people are making fun of him? Sorry, but as an objective, nuetral, and comprehensive encyclopedia, it's our job to report on all things, the good and the bad, the mundane and the controversial, without passing judgement on them ourselves. If it's notable and verifiable, we should have an article on it. Turnstep 13:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I would argue that Snopes does not discount the "non-notability" argument in any way. Look at the sheer amount of articles on Snopes... "Rat urine on pop cans", "Nebraska church explodes...", etc. Most of the content of Snopes, even where true and not merely urban legend, is not nearly pervasive enough to be notable. This of course does not change the obvious outcome of the AfD but I've yet to see convincing evidence of notability.--Isotope23 14:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Peppers passes the notability criteria with flying colors. As the typical person on the street, I bet more would recognize his name over, say, KaDee Strickland (subject of a recent featured article). -- MisterHand 14:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd take that bet. Typical person on the street in an average town (not in Ohio or Georgia) you'd get close to 100% "who the hell is that?" for both Peppers and Strickland.--Isotope23 16:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unfortunate or no, this fellow is notable, and it's Wikipedia's place to document notable people, not to decide whether they ought to have become notable in the first place. --Delirium 16:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OK so ridiculing the handicapped on the internet is a notable phenomenon, and making fun of this guy is a passing internet fad. We ought to have an entry on the people making fun of this guy, but we can't so we have an entry on this guy, not because he's inherently notable, but because making fun of the handicapped on the internet is notable... I'd vote merge into ridiculing the handicapped on the internet as a cultural phenomenon and suggest that the most efficient way to start that article is simply to archive this AFD under that title. Pete.Hurd 17:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the article were made in the same type of neutral and informative tone as the Snopes article, it wouldn't be ridicule. There is non-ridiculing information that can be presented about the individual, and there are indeed people who come to Wikipedia not to ridicule him, but to find the truth out. Fidsah 20:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can barely figure out where to vote on this page, but a freaky looking possible sex offender doesn't deserve a page any more than any other possible sex offender (read: tens of thousands of people) does. --Kiand 03:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously didn't read my comment above. He is not on wikipedia due to his sex offender status, therefore your reason for deletion is invalid. He has a page on Wikipedia because he is the subject of a notable internet meme. VegaDark
  • Keep. Appears to barely meet notability standards as an Internet meme. Privacy issues are moot; Laci Peterson didn't ask to become a celebrity either, but a celebrity she is (even if posthumous). I feel bad for Mr. Peppers, but that's no reason to pretend that the meme his booking photograph inspired doesn't exist. Powers 11:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This guy is becoming more and more notable as time goes on. Just look at all of the hubbub on Wikipedia surrounding him. The last real AfD had a 2-1 margin in favor of "Keep". Cyde Weys 17:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A debate on Wikipedia does not equal notability. FCYTravis 18:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then what is Wikipedia about? Isn't it an encyclopedia of notable topics?! And I think it's rather inappropriate to accuse me of having zero sense of what Wikipedia is about; I've been here for awhile and I do know. I think it is you who have lost your way. --Cyde Weys 19:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as youngamerican, JzG and others above. Ryanjunk 17:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For whatever it's worth, I know this isn't necessarily a vote, but:
  • Strong Delete. Non-notable; unencyclopedic material. --DanielCD 18:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Improv 18:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for what it's worth, which is nothing, because Wikipedia is being taken over by puerile kindergarten dropouts. FCYTravis 18:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's kind of ironic, but I think I'm going to have to remind you about civility. You're basically calling everyone voting Keep a "puerile kindergarten dropout", which is definitely not conducive towards constructiveness. --Cyde Weys 19:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After seeing how afd treats far less notable internet memes, this one should be a no-brainer. I'm not saying I like internet memes or anything, it's just what I've noticed happen to them if they're put up for afd. Obli (Talk) 19:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore the other 528 deleted edits Sceptre (Talk) 19:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - brian peppers definetely deserves an article about him i believe. people think that if he has is own article somewhere in there there is gonna be "lets all gang up on brian peppers" section in the article. nobody is saying anything like that, all they are saying is that it definetely would seem cool to explain exactly who he is. he gets like around 80,000 hits a day on search engines and is a notable internet phonomenon. ive been noticing that people like FCYtravis seem to have strong opinions and BIAS against people reading an article on brian peppers and not only that but also against websites like ytmnd where he said that ytmnd, escorn, and snopes cant be used as sources. well i understand people have different opinions but i wouldnt try to have other articles that i think are "immature" changed because no two ppl are alike. bpeppersfan01 (Please note that this is bpeppersfan01's first and only edit to Wikipedia) --Ashenai 20:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're absolutely correct. YTMND can't be used as a source. It's not verifiable or reliable based on Wikipedia policy. I suggest you examine Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more information. FCYTravis 20:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know I'm going to hell for this vote, but there's absolutely no doubt it's one of those memes that just won't die. I see that poor guy's mug shot everywhere. It does not speak well of human nature that it's so ubiquitous, but there's no denying it is. I recommend that we use Herostratus's version from the Suggested rewrite section below (minus the Elephant Man bit), protect it indefinitely, with NO picture, and an external link to the www.snopes.com/photos/people/peppers.asp Snopes article. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 23:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- Wikipedical 20:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. It is not Wikipedia's call whether or not Brian Peppers deserves infamy, it is Wikipedia's duty to document his infamy regardless of individual opinions regarding the meme. Those arguing he does not deserve the attention are mistaking that he had a page only because of his physical appearance, which is not true. His note worthiness is of his popularity on Internet forums, which stems from his physical appearance. As cruel as that may be, just because it's wrong doesn't mean it shouldn't have a Wiki page. Edited and monitored so that it is appropriate and not insulting in any way itself to Mr. Peppers, there should be no reason this article doesn't exist, except, it seems, that some have a hard time facing the fact that people can be cruel. I ask that those people grow up and stop putting their own disgust in the way of Wikipedia's duty. -- Viewdrix February 18 2006

Evidentiary discussion

Goodness me, what a lot of opinons being expressed! There appears to be a dearth of facts, however. Perhaps in this section we could place some evidence as to the notability of the "meme"? Unsigned, very little commentary, just the facts that can be verified and come from reliable sources. Since this is a discussion and not a vote, this will assist the closing admin in determining the proper balance between community opinon (e.g. weight of numbers) and the merit of the arguments presented.
brenneman{T}http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman{L} 01:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's abundantly clear you don't have a consensus to delete, so you're preparing the ground for another abusive deletion on the grounds that you "weighed the arguments". Why not just give it up, Aaron? You lost this one and the encyclopaedia is one article richer. -- Grace Note.
I will link to all of the major newspaper articles documenting the notability of Peppers here. (I'm am being humorous, but truthful, incidentally. Hard to tell on the internet.) --Hamiltonian 02:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many if not most of all online newspaper agenices allow their articles to expire after a period of time, Yahoo! News is notoriously bad about this. Don't forget to link the Fox News article to none. 64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:SBCS7chwDIYJ:www.foxtoledo.com/index.cfm%3Faction%3Ddsp_story%26storyid%3D87887+%22Brian+Peppers%22+%2Binternet&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6 Silensor 02:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I used EBSCOHost, which searches 25 major national newspapers from around the world, and 200+ regional newspapers, primarily from the United States. The archive goes back to, I believe, 1989. I actually generate 10 hits. --Hamiltonian 02:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-25,GGLD:en&q=%22Brian+Peppers%22 92,200 Google hits, which speaks for itself. Also an article on Snopes, and the local news station in his city had an article on him. Anyone arguing that this person is not notable enough for Wikipedia is being illogical IMO after this is presented. VegaDark 03:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my arguement on User:Badlydrawnjeff/Meme and my vote above. youngamerican (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considerably more than half of the hits come solely from the ytmnd.com domain, perhaps indicating that it is not as mimetic as might be indicated by the raw count of hits. --Hamiltonian 03:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Articles have been kept on Wikipedia in an AfD from as few as 1000 Google hits from what I have seen. Even if you discount ytmnd, that's still a good amount of hits. VegaDark 03:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A difficulty here is that an internet meme will naturally have more hits because of the inherent bias of internet searches than a non-internet-based article. While 1000 hits is certainly sufficient to determine notability of non-internet based subject searches, I would argue that many many more are required for something that originates from the internet. --Hamiltonian 04:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently many users of Wikipedia disagree with you, as there are many internet memes included on Wikipedia that get less Google hits than Brian Peppers.VegaDark 04:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good for them :-) Maybe they should be merged or deleted too. Google hits are an extremely poor measure of the notability of an internet meme, just its mimetism (which I really hope is not a word). It also values newer memes considerably over older ones. --Hamiltonian 04:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, "'brian peppers' -YTMND" results in 40k google hits. Considering that it removes hits that may mention both without necessarily being the same, it's still extremely, extremely notable Google-wise. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 04:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise that wp:web took out google hits becuase they mean, well, nothing? - brenneman{T}http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman{L} 07:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it took out Google hits because they mean something different in every single case, depending on a multitude of factors such as presence of linkspamming, alphabet transliteration, time it appeared, etc, and therefore we can't possibly form a consistent policy on it. But we can use number of Google hits as an indication when its appropriate. In the case of an internet meme, an internet search is a reasonable means of telling us whether something is mentioned outside its initial circle. In this case it clearly is. --Malthusian (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes: verifiable, reliable source. Ohio state references (oh.us): verifiable, reliable sources. Turnstep 13:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but comment on the repeated protestation of this being an "internet meme." I am mentally picturing Jimbo Wales jumping up from the witness box, turning to the jury and shouting "but he was an internet meme!" Of course the jury will be looking at poor Jimbo as though he mentally jumped the shark. They are much more likely to look at the one person's comment above that "[t]hey are simply having fun at his expense," something which I wish more people would be honest enough to openly express. Jtmichcock 03:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Suggested rewrite

[NOTE: I'm not sure I'm reading the same article as everyone else. I can only see the version at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Brian Peppers (6th nomination). If there is a later version, this may make my suggestion invalid. However, if the later version contains (as I infer) more details about his crime, that would only reinforce my point below.] Herostratus

I'm not sure the article as it exists is quite focussed as it should be. For instance, the articles begins "Brian Peppers (born November 1, 1968) is a disabled man who was convicted of "Gross Sexual Imposition..." pretty much indicating Here's a guy who is notable because he was convicted of a sex crime, and by the way his photo was published here and there.

But Peppers isn't notable for his conviction. Lots of people are convicted of sex crimes. Peppers is notable only inasmuch as his photo is a meme. So it is the meme that is of interenst, n'est-ce pas?

64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:I2skf31MCWsJ:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Peppers+Brian+Peppers&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1 This is the most neutral and overall best version I have seen so far, written by Cornflake pirate. I would add a mention to the fact that picures of him in a wheelchair have circulated around the internet, leading to the belief that he is wheelchair bound to that version though. VegaDark 06:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good version. I could go for that too, or maybe a merged version. I'm not sure about the reference to his crime. Unfortunately it has to be stated why his picture first came up on the internet. From there the question is to go into the details of the crime or not. The crime is not notable, but if someone is looking him up they are apparently interested in details. I think the crime either should not be further mentioned (as not notable) or it should tell exactly what he did (presumably available in public records) because otherwise the researcher is left hanging. He lives in nursing home, and I gather that his crime was to make some sort of advance to a female caregiver. I infer that it is quite likely that the fellow has probably not had a lot of physical affection and was just trying to be a human being. Herostratus 18:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So here's a suggested draft rewrite, it would need verification and citation and editing etc. Herostratus 06:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Peppers (born November 1, 1968) is a disabled man whose disfigured appearance became a subject of mockery on various American web sites, including YTMND, Fark, and Something Awful, at the turn of the 21st Century.

Peppers' abnormal appearance is likely due to a congenital deformity caused by a condition such as Apert syndrome or Crouzon syndrome. His photograph was originally published on the internet by the State of Ohio in 1998 after Peppers was convicted of Gross Sexual Imposition, after which it went into wide circulation on the internet.

While many have found in Peppers’ deformed aspect a source of amusement and contempt, others have criticized the Peppers phenomena as ghoulish invasion of privacy, a resurrection of the long-reviled freak show in electronic form, and an example of how some internet subcultures can sometimes engage in a moral "race to the bottom".

The Brian Peppers phenomena has caused Ohio to reconsider its policy of publishing photographs of convicted sex offenders.

("See also" section)

(External links, references, etc.)

  • "Is likely due..." is Original Research. That one at least would needs verification and citing. "While many" is another weasel phrase. Also, Snopes doesn't post things that are mocked on Fark, et al. it posts things that are sent around via chain mail to the general public. We should focus more on that angle of it. Turnstep 12:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, all valid points. "Is likely due..." comes from Snopes, but Snopes is no medical expert, so not citable; that would probably have to go (even if a Wikipedia expert could confirm, it would still be OR unless a diagnoses of Peppers was published somewhere else -- not very likely.) "While many" could perhaps be expanded to "While many readers of Something Awful and similar sites...", should not be difficult to find examples to cite. "...others have criticized..." would also need citations of examples. As to the email thingy, right, diligent research should resolve if that's true. If the article is kept I'll volunteer to do all that. Herostratus 13:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the third graf entirely, as nothing in there can really be verified absent a self-reference to the debate on Wikipedia, which would be stupid. Just as there are zero reliable sources on the entire article save Snopes, there are zero reliable sources that we can cite as "criticizing" anything. You might be able to find a blog, but we don't cite blogs. FCYTravis 05:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD notice removed

I'd like to point out that the notice that would normally link to this discussion on the Brian Peppers page has been removed due to someone deleting the article, thus people who may wish to express their opinions on this issue is limited to those that already know about it's creation. Can someone re-add the AfD notice at the top of the page so people will be able to find this? VegaDark 04:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that we're already having an AfD on a deleted article, the use of "normally" in the sentance above is a bit of a stretch. The vast majority of traffic on an AfD is from the AfD page, not the article. - brenneman{T}http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman{L} 05:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please substantiate this? Yamaguchi先生 05:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only by inference, but it's pretty straight forward. Go look at some closed afds and you'll note that the majority of the influx is in the first days. If it were from the article the rate would be constant. If pressed I can make some charts, but go have a look and see what you think. - brenneman{T}http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Aaron+Brenneman{L} 05:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that is usually the case. But for internet memes I would certainly disagree, even discounting meat/sockpuppets. VegaDark 05:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Without access to Wikimedia's httpd logs, there is no way you, I, or anyone else can infer how many visitors are reaching the Brian Peppers article only to find a deleted page. It would probably be helpful if this AFD were prominently linked to the front of that page as we usually do, but since it is protected I cannot make that change. Yamaguchi先生 05:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel's 2 cents worth

I support anything that gets this crap out of here and leaves the BP article deleted and does it in a policy-supported manner. If that involves opening a debate, just DO it and get it done. This could have long been over in the time that it's been trashed over and over. --DanielCD 18:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sadly think that this is something where Jimbo has to step in and solve this problem. I also notice this trend too: the only ways I see problems get solved is an edict by Jimbo. If that is the way the community is going, then I wonder how many folks will take off or get blocked. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 20:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then please go ahead and tell Jimbo, if you haven't already done so. --TML1988 21:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we at least wait and see if this discussion resolves things before falling on our knees and praying for divine intervention? If there are further wheel wars after the debate closes - properly - then by all means invoke The Jimbo. --Malthusian (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have not, nor will I, intend to contact Jimbo about this. It is just my opinion that it will have to take some form of "higher power" in order to finally get this wheel-war to stop. And, it is also my general feeling that in order to get things done, we have to wait for Jimbo to say or do something before we get started on anything, like with dealing with copyvios and with them userboxes. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 02:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Peppers_(6th_nomination)&oldid=64449292"