[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny

[Delirium]

Ben Emmel wrote:

>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.
>
>If I was him, or a member of his family, I certainly wouldn't want it up
>there.
>  
>
Nobody is arguing that having a disability or being a sex offender is 
inherently notable.  The article is not even primarily about the person, 
but about the internet fad the person has caused, which *is* a notable 
sociological phenomenon.

Whether someone wants an article or not does and should not have any 
relevant whatsoever.  [[en:Star Wars kid]], another internet fad, 
doesn't want an article either, but there you have one.  Brian Peppers 
is a less well-known internet fad, but still certainly at the level 
where he would warrant inclusion in any more than cursary treatment of 
the subject.

Since I hope Wikipedia will become, in the long term, a compendium of 
all human knowledge, I think it sad that an unexplained decision to 
unilaterally remove content has poked holes in its coverage of internet 
culture, an important area of current sociological research at which 
Wikipedia ought naturally to excel.

-Mark