On 2/22/06, Ben Emmel bratsche1@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/21/06, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/22/06, Ben Emmel bratsche1@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 there.
But that has never been a criteria for inclusion or exclusion.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)