Keith Old wrote:
If he did, well done to him. There is no legitimate
reason for an article on
Mr Peppers other than people on a couple of websites chose to make fun of
his appearance.
I don't have any particular investment in the article (I think
I voted
in an AfD on it), but what you just wrote here seems to me to be similar
to saying "there is no legitimate reason for an article on Mr. Peppers
other than the legitimate reason there's an article on him." It may not
be _nice_ to make fun of someone based on their appearance, but if it's
happening enough it becomes a valid subject for an article IMO. As
someone else pointed out there's an article on Ghyslain Raza as another
example of fame through mockery making a person notable.
In the latest AfD, one voter said words to effect of
we're
just making fun of his appearance. Surely, Wikipedia should have higher
purposes than mocking the disabled which his article has generally tended to
be.
Wikipedia isn't making fun of his appearance any more than Wikipedia is
accusing Thomas Quick of being a murderer. Wikipedia is hosting an
article about how _other people_ are making fun of his
appearance/accusing Thomas Quick of being a murderer.
If Wikipedia were to make fun of his appearance that would probably fall
under "No Original Research" anyway, all issues of morality and
politeness aside.