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

I must say...[edit]

...I'm very disappointed in this discussion. I fully expected a sock parade of epic proportions coming up with moronic, uninventive, stupid conclusions as to why this should remain deleted. Unfortunately, I'm seeing a bunch of well-established editors take a "IDONTLIKEIT" tack to try and keep something that otherwise meets our standards off the project because we don't like it. Of all the keep deleted arguments, i see maybe two that have anything to do with reality, and many that outright make up reasons out of thin air to try and justify the article's creation. Multiple, verifiable, third-party sources? Check. "Notability?" Check. A rotten thing to happen to a guy who's deformities aren't his fault? Check. The only problem is that we don't include/uninclude based on the third checkmark, and I hope whoever ends up closing this remembers that, or there's a really big problem we have here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the really big problem? Newyorkbrad 16:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That we're so ready to drop our standards for something we don't like regularly? That those we supposedly entrust to use the standards we've agreed on are willing to abandon them for the same reason? I can respect a good argument for removal, there simply hasn't been one yet and doesn't look like there will be. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an arguement for having an ethical behaviour policy; if we can get WP:Basic dignity set up properly then I will endorse the votes for delete (and nominate Daniel Brandt and a host of other iffy articles for deletion, for that matter). Dave 17:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, I'd hope that would be DOA. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the basic dignity page has already been set up and several editors have been involved in improving it. That's about all that can be done for now, time will tell whether it grows up into accepted policy or not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I don't think his notability and verifiability are as established as you seem to think they are. All we really know about him (based on reliable sources) is that he's some kind of sex offender and where he lives. We don't even know exactly what his crime was (although I seem to recall that he served 30 days for it, so it wasn't anything major). Beyond that, it's all speculation, and mostly incorrect speculation at that: if he were really a rapist or child molester as some seem to insist, he would have gotten a hell of a lot more than 30 days. Furthermore, Jeff, are you sure you want to go on record as one of this article's sole defenders among established editors? Really sure? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are pretty established - if that's what you actually believe can be verified, then I question whether you've really examined the sourced provided. Now, do I want to be "one of this article's sole defenders?" No, I think the way he's been treated as a whole is more than unfortunate. Do I have to be because people are not being rational? Yes. I don't mind being in the minority, even if being that minority makes me uncomfortable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict, to badlydrawnjeff) There have been lots of good arguments for removal, I think, presented here and in discussion elsewhere. I think that between Guy and Doc and Thatcher131 and Starblind and a number of other comments here, and my and Bainer's and others' comments on the ANI thread the other day, the endorse/keep deleted arguments have been put very soundly. In fairness to the other side I will admit that I was surprised to see in this debate one (and only one) decent argument against the endorse-keep-deleted position: Everyking's observation that at least a Wikipedia article on this situation might have some hope of being neutral and written with minimal decency, helping to outweigh the garbage that have been written about this topic on other sites. That's a point I hadn't thought about before, and it's a fair one; but on balance it doesn't outweigh everything else that has been said or could be said. As I said in a comment to you on ANI the other day, which was buried in the threaded discussion and the thread was then boxed so you might not have seen it, I don't wear it on my sleeve but I am probably well toward your side of the so-called inclusionist/deletionist spectrum. Although lines must of course be drawn somewhere, I think that a lot of the time and effort that contributors here devote to policing the borderlines of notability on things like high schools and local bands and webcomics (I'm particularly sensitive this week to webcomics) can often be misguided and not worth the return on investment. I regret many of the deletions I see every day, I've probably declined at least 25% of the CSD requests I've processed since I became an administrator, and I tend to favor the inclusion rather than deletion of reasonable content that meets our basic standards so long as there are not supervening considerations. Here, though, there are many such considerations, on every level, which this and the many prior discussions have identified. You have a self-defined role on this project advocating for the inclusion of challenged material, and you generally play it well; but where supervening issues are at play, as they are here, please don't allow that to degenerate into the advocacy of inclusion merely for the sake of inclusion. When all is said and done, I see a consensus in favor of continued deletion, and properly so. (After edit conflict: One minor correction to Starblind's post here, I don't believe Jeff is the sole established editor defending the article, though he is certainly in a small minority.) Newyorkbrad 16:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want to go over the discussion? JzG falsely claims there is a "sole reliable source" and that "not one additional reliable source has been produced." I respect Doc's position as a human being, but in terms of how we have to handle things here, "morally unjustifiable" has no place in the discussion. Thatcher's position is simply a combination of the other two, and Starblind simply runs off an irrelevant laundry list ("verifiability policy, basic encyclopedic ethics, libel law, and essential human rights") which does not apply in any way shape or form to this. There's definitely a good argument to be said about "inclusion v. exclusion" on this, but I'm also very heavily swayed by Everyking's commentary: we have the ability (and perhaps responsibility) to provide a neutral, factual article on an undoubtedly "notable" (and that is a fact, there's no question as to his "notability") individual to cross against the YTMND and ED-style hatchet-jobs, and we should take advantage of that instead of looking foolish and keeping our eyes closed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is NOT an indiscriminate collection of information--MONGO 21:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Closing[edit]

This did not merit a snowball closing. Consensus was certainly endorse deletion, but not sufficiently so as to be unchangeable. I therefore recommend that it is re-opened. Dave 19:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absurdity abound. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion was that the only real chance of changing the consensus was the production (somewhere) of a tightly sourced, WP:BLP compliant, article content that is too long for inclusion in List of internet phenomena. WP:BLP became policy since this topic was put out of bounds for a year. So this really had no chance absent a draft article. Let it wait until someone has written a decent, compliant draft. That could be in the target of the redirect, at a user sub-page, elsewhere on the web, or even on someone's local hard drive and only put on a user sub-page when a new draft is ready for review. Let this review go. GRBerry 19:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no BLP issue with this article. As noted, the Wikitruth "uncensored" version was completely compliant, but could use some work. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus against re-creating the article is overwhelming. Personally, I would prefer retention of the outright deletion over redirecting to List of Internet phenomena, in part because the "People" section in that article is itself a WP:LIVING/privacy/notability horror show that needs substantial attention and clean-up. But I suppose we should leave that for another day. Newyorkbrad 20:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(cross-posted to ANI) I strongly oppose a closure of a discussion open only 11 hours. This doesn't give a lot of people a chance to see it and comment. Trebor 20:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a complete stitch up - discussion closed without a consensus being reached after only a few hours by someone who clearly states their own personal agenda. 4kinnel 20:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus is quite evident. Consensus does not mean, or imply, unanimity; all it means is that most folks agree. That's clearly the case here. I'm not convinced that it would chage absent new arguments; in particular, the flood of YTMND denizens this discussion would likely attract over the course of a week would not change the true consensus. -- Jay Maynard 20:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the long-term Wikipedia users who happen to live in the wrong timezone? Or those with commitments that only allow them to edit for an hour a day? This is systemic bias against certain demographics of the Wikipedia community; 24 hours should be the absolute minimum for discussions. Trebor 20:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. When I finally had time to comment on this discussion it had been closed rediculously quickly. In fact this is the opposite of WP:SNOW. Conversely, the policy also states that "any substantial debate" is a good reason not to close early. It doesn't say a lot of delete v. keep votes, but a lot of debate, which this clearly was.--Wizardman 20:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that the article remain deleted, but regardless, ~~I second (third, etc.) the motion that the debate be reopened... granted, we'd have a lot of section breaks.~~ Let me think about this a bit more. (21:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)) Gracenotes ^T § 20:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened an RfC on Samuel Blanning's conduct at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Samuel Blanning. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I support the deletion (or redirection) of this article, I agree that the discussion should have been allowed at least a full 24 hours with respect to editors in other time zones and editing schedules. This type of early closure only serves to escalate tensions within the community. (jarbarf) 21:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I went to bed before it started and by the time I was able to get on again, it was already over. — MichaelLinnear 00:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The length of the main deletion review page for this article was hardly the long, besides is "there is too much discussion" really a good reason to snowball close a discussion?? Mathmo ^Talk 06:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bring back Brian PepparszZZ111one[edit]

Meh.. mise well remove all internet memes on Wikipedia at this rate. Fr0 23:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan. How many have reliable secondary sources, anyway? Four? —Cryptic 03:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm ftw. It made the news, and it's another internet meme at best. And, if there are four sources, that's better than zero amiright? ;) Fr0 02:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]