[WikiEN-l] Advice needed

[Sam Korn]

On 2/15/06, Guy Chapman <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> 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_%286th_nomination%29
>
> Peppers is a fad on YTMND and Fark, for reasons which are obvious from this
> link:
>
> http://pepperstruth.ytmnd.com/
>
> The problem is, he is notable *solely* because a number of people on the net
> have chosen to laugh at his freakish appearance, apparently the result of a
> congential deformity.
>
> 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 n ursing 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).
>
> So it seems unavoidable that we will participate in the memtic process,
> because we can't say what a lot of us want to say (that Peppers is a
> disabled man, suffers from a congenital deformity, was convicted of a
> technical offence and is known almost exclusively because his photograph
> became an In ternet freak-sho exhibit).
>
> People insist on the article, clamour for the picture, and revert edits
> which emphasise Peppers' status as a big-time loser in the lottery of life -
> possibly because I can't write these edits in a way whihc adequately coneals
> my absolute contempt for those who exploit Peppers' picture ad an object of
> derision.
>
> Should I just forget it?  Or ar we (either me or those who want the article
> restored) missing some vital point of policy?

As with most controversial topics, the way out is to absolutely insist
on sourcing.  And sourcing means *quality* sourcing.  Not every fact
needs to be footnoted in the article; a talk page subpage would be
excellent.  If there are no reliable sources, the information (such as
it is) gets deleted.

If anyone questions this, it is supported by all three strands of the
project: policy (WP:V), process (WP:CITE) and the good of the
encyclopaedia (aka common sense).

And if there's no information left, the article must be deleted.

--
Sam