On 29/06/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/28/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/27/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
You keep alluding to other reliable sources, but I have yet to come across any. What are they?
eSorn, the sex offender list, the court records, Fox Toledo...
These are not encyclopedic sources. What I mean by that is not that they are unreliable and thus should not be used, since they are obviously accurate as sources go.
So, when you said that "no one has yet to come up with anything resembling a reliable source" what you meant was that we've come up with lots of reliable sources, but that we haven't come up with what you would consider multiple encyclopedic reliable sources?
With that amendment, I'm apt to stop disagreeing.
What I mean is that they are not encyclopedic in the sense that they don't tell us anything about why a particular individual is worthy of an encyclopedia entry.
Google Trends tell us that. Lots of people are searching for information on Brian Peppers.
They provide raw data, not information or context. By repeatedly citing the google search stats, you are (I assume) trying to justify the existence of a Brian Peppers article on the grounds that he is a noteworthy internet meme, so what is needed are reliable sources establishing that he is in fact a noteworthy internet meme, not sources that merely establish his existence as a person or a criminal sex offender.
No, I've never said anything about being an internet meme. I frankly don't even know what the term means.
In short, a reliable source establishing why *this particular* person should have an article, as opposed to all the other essentially anonymous people on the sex offender list or in Ohio court records.
The most reliable source for that is Google Trends. This particular person should have an article because lots of people are searching for information about him. If you want to call that "an internet meme", that's your terminology, not mine.
Anthony
Forgive me but wasn't the Brian Peppers thing about ridicule and "fair ground show attraction" than it was about him being a meme. The whole thing is something that wikipedia is not about. Wikipedia should echo current themes in society (it is not a pen and paper encyclopedia) but it should not become the source. Wikipedia as a top rank site, has responsibilities. Snopes can do all that for us like did in newsgroups.
Mike