Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Peck

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Peck

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Brian Peck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to have been created solely as a reaction to a recent documentary airing where this person is featured in some of the episodes as a perpetrator. This person is listed as an actor and a criminal on the page, but fails WP:ENTERTAINER as an actor, having not had significant roles in multiple notable films. And also seems to fail WP:CRIMINAL given the there is already in-depth coverage of the accusations surrounding him on the Drake Bell and "Quiet on Set" documentary pages (per guidelines: The criminal is question should only be the subject of a Wikipedia article only "where there are no appropriate existing articles"). Additionally, the recent news coverage all seem to relate to the documentary, so there doesn't seem to be enough coverage to satisfy WP:SUSTAINED, either. (Also, not sure, but does the page fail WP:BLP1E?) I note that other criminals (such as Wayne Couzens, who received far more news coverage and has several documentaries dedicated to him) do not have their own WP page. I'm learning! Thanks. WikiMane11 (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This convicted rapist deserves to be broadcasted as a danger to society. 2600:1700:2980:5590:E494:AE3D:17AA:3921 (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: With regard to WP:BLP1E, Mr. Peck is not notable for just one event (the 2003 charge), but rather because of the ongoing controversy regarding that type of event- consensual sex with a 15-year-old resulting in prison. And he may be notable as a Hollywood figure, (not as an actor) but as “the Forrest Gump of Hollywood because he knew everybody" and someone who had many well known supporters after his arrest. 71.230.16.111 (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Wayne Couzens was a police officer in the UK. He wasnt famous. The fact you said that this pedo shouldnt have a wikipedia page because some unknown murderer doesnt have one is completely backward. Brian Peck used and abused his power. He sexually assaulted a child. He worked with children and worked in the entertainment industry. He should have a WP page, so people know who he is and can stop him being a danger still. 2A01:4B00:9DE7:7600:B298:D96D:1DB:3A11 (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:BLPE; he is notable for his 2003 charges coupled with ongoing controversy. There are plenty of people who are far less “notable” than Peck but have their own pages, all stubs. I believe that this page has enough sources due to recent press on Peck (as well as the 2003 charges) that this could be anything but a stub.. of course, if it’s not to be deleted. Sugar, Spice, and XX (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:You can argue that his charges are ongoing - especially with him being the subject of some documentaries. However, saying that people who are far less "notable" than Peck have their own Wikipedia page may veer into an WP:OtherStuffExists argument. As I mentioned in my Keep argument, Peck was notable for his minor roles before his controversies. His future notability also veers into WP:Crystal as well, but as it stands - there are a lot of sources that make Peck a notable figure. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 03:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it was just the SA conviction then I'd vote delete, but his coverage for his actual job he had did garner non-trivial coverage. Also legitimately baffled by the Gacy fact, but that doesn't play into the notability arguments. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple independent and reliable sources have significant coverage of him, as a criminal, and as a Hollywood personality, an actor and a staff member of productions to satisfy general notability, even if it is a bit weak per the special guidelines for actors or for criminals. Reliable sources have established his notability, possibly due to the juxtaposition. His actions, andHollywood’s willingness to overlook his conviction and keep hiring him being featured in a series do not erase the notability. Edison (talk)<
  • Comment: (Note: Your signature on this comment has been corrupted.) I just wanted to question the assertion that he passes WP:ENTERTAINER, which states the person must have significant roles in multiple notable productions. The article states that he is best known for being "Scuz" in "Return of the Living Dead" and "Pickle Boy" in "All That" (and that seems to be supported by other editors here). However, I can't find any notable coverage of him for these roles. (A few fan blog interviews for Return of the Living Dead.) "Pickle Boy" appears to have only featured in 11 of "All That"'s 200+ episodes, and from the clips I found, he appeared only for maybe 30 seconds without any dialogue. The rest of his filmography feels padded to me (I've never seen anyone be notable for being a "dialogue coach" or have so many "uncredited" appearances -- was he an extra?). I also can't find any articles that refer to him as a "Hollywood personality". Upon reflection, it seems to me that he's only become notable because of the high profile of his victim. It seems unlikely this page would exist otherwise, and the fact that this it didn't exist before last month seems to support this. It's fine if this article should be kept, but it feels like it should be done for the right reasons, and at the moment there hasn't been any arguments that support that. Is this person a notable criminal, per WP:CRIMINAL? And what is covered on this page that isn't already covered elsewhere on WP? WikiMane (TP2001) (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While the became infamous due to the documentary, he was prosecuted and found guilty of what the documentary stated, its a matter of judicial fact. As someone important to many shows in a producer/coach role and a now notable figure keeping the article would be in the best interest of all. Josearmado1998 (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sorry for getting drawn into these comments. I guess I'm a little perplexed: There seems to be an attempt to inflate this person's achievements? If this wasn't the page of a criminal, I'd suspect the person themselves was editing it! :) It appears he was an associate producer on three independently produced direct-to-DVD films. How is this "many shows"? And when has "dialogue coach" been notable enough for a page to exist? (I also just noted, while looking at these films, that editors have added him to the cast, as if he was a main cast member!) Apologies again, but it's just interesting to see. WikiMane (TP2001) (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2024 (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_Peck&oldid=1219234943"