Template:Did you know nominations/Sam Pepper


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Montanabw (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Sam Pepper

 * ... that YouTube personality Sam Pepper was a Big Brother?


 * ALT1:... that YouTube personality Sam Pepper recently confessed that his pranks were staged?
 * ALT2:... that YouTube personality Sam Pepper recently debunked all sexual harassment allegations towards him?

Moved to mainspace by Sekyaw (talk). Self-nominated at 03:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg for ALT1, which is definitely the most interesting hook. No QPQ necessary, as this appears to be nominator's first DYK submission. Article is brand new, long enough, well sourced, and despite the fact it contains a lot of controversial information, all are strongly referenced. Article subject has been the topic of much reporting for various scandals; that's much of his claim to fame, so this works for WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. —Torchiest talkedits 14:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Pulled from prep 3 due to BLP concerns raised at WT:DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page:

Hello there! So my nomination of Sam Pepper was recently removed from prep, to which I responded back in the current discussion of the removal in WT:DYK. I see that you were also involved in the discussion and I would like a response back to clear up the situation, as well as hopefully revive the removed hook. Thank you!  Sekyaw  (talk)  19:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry,, I saw your comment yesterday but was unable to find time to respond to it, and I don't have time to discuss it right now either as I am about to log off. But the short answer to your query is that it isn't always easy to make a judgement call about what is a violation of BLP or not. In my view, if there are doubts about an article, it probably shouldn't be featured at DYK. And with regard to this one, the subject seems to be an average joe who has attempted to gain fame by pulling some silly pranks that have upset a lot of people. I'm really not sure Wikipedia should be immortalizing this guy's brief episode of poor judgement with a biography at all, let alone a spot on the main page. [end copy] Gatoclass (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Since this apparently requires more input, I took a look at. Honestly, I'm not certain this can go on the main page, and I would err on the side of caution, and not put it there. Given the subject matter, and given the coverage that the subject has received, I think the article is actually neutrally written; it takes great care to mention allegations and replies in the subjects' voices. However, by its very nature it is going to be very negative, at least until the individual in question gets coverage for more positive things. It's no judgement on the nominator, merely an observation about the subject itself. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Given the BLP concerns raised above, and lacking much improvement since nomination a month and a half ago,  this article's subject is not ready for main page exposure. Montanabw (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)