On 7/2/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
To ask whether or not the sources establish notability
question. You say a topic is notable only if its sources establish
notability. But that doesn't say what it means to establish
I already have. Some context that differentiates him from others of
his type and establishes why he is significant enough to have an
I remember seeing it before so I'm sure I could
find it if I needed
to. But then you'd just say that isn't enough to prop up an
encyclopedia article either, so why should I bother? I don't expect
to change your mind - you don't think an article on Brian Peppers
belongs in Wikipedia. But please don't make it out like we don't have
any sources on him, or that all we know is that he exists.
No, I'm not hellbent on keeping a Brian Peppers article out, I didn't
even vote in the AfDs. Maybe I would say that about the source, I
don't know, I haven't read it. But if it's a note in some local paper
about his arrest, I wouldn't think that sufficient. As has been noted
by others before, Wikipedia is not a police blotter.
The sources simply don't exist to justify the existence of an article.
Any individual living in an industrialized society generates a
significant number of primary documents. We could find a similar group
of sources for any individual, but that's not an encyclopedia, that's
a database of random personal information. Nothing other than the
Snopes article (and that, barely) says anything other than this is
some random, essentially anonymous individual with a criminal record.
We've deleted articles on people far more notable than Brian Peppers
with far more legitimate sources. A case could be made for saving
those articles, but there is no case for saving this one.