Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Brian Peppers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why was the discussion removed? Is there some sort of coverup?--Sonjaaa 03:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of controversy regarding this entire situation. I think it should stay up personally, as it's a large meme.

Fr0 01:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I am now curious as to what occurred here... it is like a battlefield, completely empty with no evidence of who was here and why they were fighting... what happened? Misterniceguy7 02:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, but I can speculate. Are you familiar with the subject? There are several parodies on ytmnd.com. Search for them, they are really funny. I found something that might help you understand what happened; [here]

Fr0 03:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What happened was, as usual, typical of Wikipedia lately. Despite a clear ruling by Jimbo, several users decided to continue to debate the article and attempt to re-insert it, thus the blanked discussion. This is why more and more people are leaving Wiki every day, because of nonsense like that. TruthCrusader 20:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I think that it was a very popular and notable internet meme. I look forward to its return on Wikipedia.

Fr0 06:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that'll happen, as Wikipedia seems to be getting stricter and stricter about this kind of stuff. We're moving slightly more in the direction of Conservapedia, and cutting out trivialities, nonsense and poor quality information, like it or not.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Blanking the AfD discussion "as a courtesy to the article's subject" doesn't seem very consistent with the official policy that Wikipedia is not censored. Redxiv 01:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] how to view the discussion

even though it was erased, you can still see what happened in the page's history.

[edit] deadline?

Now that Jimbo's date has passed, does it mean one can restart the article? I don't understand the censorship.--Sonjaaa 16:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the article should be reinistated for historical purposes. The person in question, the event(s), and it's pop culture. That's it. People had a problem with it because Brian was only accused as far as I recall. Fr0 03:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I support reinstating it. Very notable internet meme. -Rocket000 06:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] uncensored discussion

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Peppers

Patently non-encyclopedic content. A part has been copied from http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/peppers.asp, the rest is spam, unverifiable, and/or nonsense. After removing that material, we are left with "Brian Peppers is a sex offender, sentenced to 30 days of imprisonment and 5 years of probation for gross sexual imposition. His (alleged) photo has been circulating on Internet since April 2005." Not notable, Wikipedia is not a sex offenders registry, nor a repository of Internet rumors. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 11:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Minor web meme. Could really be speedied for both copyvio (from Snopes) and attack-page content. I don't know exactly what "gross sexual imposition" is, but if he only got 30 days for it then it's safe to say that it isn't multiple child rape like the article says. Content is therefore libel. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:34, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete i agree with mike rosoft, wikipedia isn't a sex offender registry. other than that, i've already explained my feelings on the matter. on a side-note, gross sexual imposition as defined by the state of ohio is, according to this site, "Being touched on/in the thigh, genitals, buttocks, pubic region or breasts when force or threat of force was used or the victim's ability to defend was impaired by drugs alcohol or mental condition." with that, we can at least say we got some vitally useful wisdom out of this. .. supine 13:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Attack page. Wikibofh 14:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree; I am marking the article as such. - Mike Rosoft 14:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: I agree that it's a prank, but I can't agree on the speedy delete enough to pull the trigger on it myself. (If it's a prank, there is no real person to be attacked. If there is a real person, then this is just vile and a speedy.) Geogre 18:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Like I said, there is a real Brian Peppers who has spent a month in jail for a sex crime. A record of his court proceedings can be found here. (If there weren't, the article could have been speedily deleted as well as patent nonsense.) - Mike Rosoft 19:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Real person, and so what if the article reports negative things about him (even if they are possibly exaggerated) but not notable. -- BD2412n talk 20:26, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit torn on this one. The article at present is a copyvio, but regarding the subject himself, I'd say delete if not for the fact that he's (regrettably) something of an internet phenomenon. I'm going to just say delete as copyvio, but express no opinion as to the appropriateness of an article on the subject himself (who is real, and really does look like that too). Postdlf 22:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
BTW, see [1] for proof that neither the individual nor the photo are hoaxes, so let's put that issue to rest. Postdlf 22:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 01:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete as previously deleted material. --Allen3 talk 16:13, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Peppers

This was deleted previously and its back again. I vote for deletion one again. Dan Granahan 19:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable as either an Internet meme nor as a criminal. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 20:21, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as reposting of previously deleted material. --TheMidnighters 20:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, and protect from recreation. Ral315 WS 07:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Peppers

Above are the results of TWO PRIOR DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS PAGE both of which ended in a vote for delete. Photo & and much of information from State of Ohio Correctional site and possibly copyvio. Also, not encyclopedic, but more like National Enquirer. Article in poor taste —Gaff talk 07:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. --Nlu 07:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.