[WikiEN-l] Borderline notable bios (yes, again)

[Anthony]

On 7/13/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 12:09:39 -0400, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org>
> wrote:
>
> >> But in the end, no.  I don't think we should have an article on
> >> somebody who is in the end "famous" solely because, well, a group of
> >> sophomoric fucktards got their rocks off laughing at his appearance.
>
> >And in the end, I don't think we should *not* have an article on
> >somebody simply because they have a serious disability which makes
> >some people laugh at them.  Equal rights, and everything, I say.
>
> How many articles do we have on people known only for their
> deformities?  The only one I can think of is Joseph Merrick.
>
I have no idea how many.  I also don't think it's accurate to say that
Peppers is known *only* for his deformities.  There are plenty of
people more deformed than Peppers, after all.

> >I also think your description of gross sexual imposition as a "minor
> >technical offence" is terribly inaccurate.  Maybe Peppers wasn't
> >actually guilty of this offense (in which case the story is that much
> >more important, by the way), but if Peppers was guilty of the offense
> >I don't think it is minor.
>
> Ahem - that's *attempted* gross sexual imposition (which specifically
> excludes actual sexual contact).  The man is by all accounts disabled
> and his address is a nursing home.
>
Snopes says "registered due to a conviction for Gross Sexual
Imposition in Lucas County, Ohio, in 1998".  It doesn't say
"attempted".  Maybe Snopes is wrong.  And maybe if Wikipedia had an
article on Peppers it would be easier to find out if Snopes is wrong.

> >Regardless of why Peppers is famous a lot of people want to know more
> >about him, and in my opinion it is the job of Wikipedia to inform them
> >about him, if for no other reason than to dispell the rumors spread by
> >"sophomoric fucktards".
>
> Unfortunately the sophomoric fucktards don't want anyone to realise
> they are sophomoric fucktards, and they prevent that fact from
> creeping into the article.
>
So semi-protect the page and ban the fucktards.  C'mon, if we deleted
every article that gets vandalized we'd soon have no articles.

> How many articles do we have on people for whose entire life there is
> precisely one primary (court) and one secondary source (Snopes)?

I don't know.  I also don't know if that assertion is correct about
Peppers, and I don't see the relevance.

> And
> for whom the major source is actually as unreliable as it gets
> (YTMND)?
>
Was that "major source" the primary or secondary one you were referring to?

> Leave the guy alone.
>
I'm not doing anything to the guy.

Anthony