On 2/21/06, Andrew Lih <andrew.lih(a)gmail.com>
On 2/22/06, Ben Emmel <bratsche1(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I hold the opinion that any article on this man
is not going to be NPOV,
since the only reason he is popular is because Peppers is unfortuantely
stricken with a condition that makes him look funny.
Not entirely - the person has a Snopes.com
entry, and is a registered
sex offender in Ohio.
I'm not endorsing it one way or another (for now), but it's certainly
not a "slam dunk" case.
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.
We can debate whether the math should be 0.5 x 0.5 or 0.5 + 0.5
But you did not address the fact that it has become such a referenced
urban legend that it made it into Snopes.com's files.
If I was him, or a member of his family, I certainly
wouldn't want it up
But that has never been a criteria for inclusion or exclusion.