"Guy Chapman" <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote in
message news:001a01c63285$a62e01f0$030010ac@internal.sungard.corp...
This is the latest in the on-again, off-again history
of Brian Peppers on
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_Peppers_…
Peppers is a fad on YTMND and Fark, for reasons which are obvious from
this
link:
http://pepperstruth.ytmnd.com/
No, even that's not the problem, the *real* problem is that a lot of
people
are determined that we should have an article on him, but the sources for
the fact that he is disabled, lives in a nursing home, poses no threat to
the community and appears only to be on the offenders' register as a
result
of an inappropriate contact with a nurse/carer, is from a source which is
less reliable than Snopes
(
http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/peppers.asp).
Should I just forget it? Or ar we (either me or those who want the
article
restored) missing some vital point of policy?
So why are those facts not the mainstay of the article?
The YTMND feature seems to quote some reasonably sources, which can surely
be checked.
So check them, use them to lock down the article to solidly-referenced
facts, and repel all boarders who want to add anything extra without proper
references. Using the photograph in some form seems to be unavoidable, since
that is one of the main reasons for which he has become known: even Snopes
displays it.
Simply attempting to have no article on a subject which has caused so much
bother is against the principle of having a free encyclopedia. People will
want to come to Wikipedia to get the straight facts (bit of a Friday moment
on a Thursday :-) and if we don't have anything they are likely to add it
themselves, in the spirit of the place.
Having "jackbooted thugs" suddenly stomping all over them for creating an
article "which everybody knows is stoopid" will not make good PR.
HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]