Ben Emmel wrote:
No, I do agree that it's not a open-and-shut
decision. But like Jimbo said,
if we still care about this article in a year, then we can argue then. It's
a pretty good way to find out notability. My logic goes like this: a person
with a disability is not inherently notable, a sex offender is not
inherently notable, so a combination of the two is only barely notable.
Given that we should have high editorial standards, I think our Brian
Peppers slips beneath our bar.
If I was him, or a member of his family, I certainly wouldn't want it up
there.
Nobody is arguing that having a disability or being a sex offender is
inherently notable. The article is not even primarily about the person,
but about the internet fad the person has caused, which *is* a notable
sociological phenomenon.
Whether someone wants an article or not does and should not have any
relevant whatsoever. [[en:Star Wars kid]], another internet fad,
doesn't want an article either, but there you have one. Brian Peppers
is a less well-known internet fad, but still certainly at the level
where he would warrant inclusion in any more than cursary treatment of
the subject.
Since I hope Wikipedia will become, in the long term, a compendium of
all human knowledge, I think it sad that an unexplained decision to
unilaterally remove content has poked holes in its coverage of internet
culture, an important area of current sociological research at which
Wikipedia ought naturally to excel.
-Mark