Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Pepper


 * 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 in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

James Pepper

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article about an unnotable creator of an unnotable franchise (I get 117 Ghits on the franchise). - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 19:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If deleted, please also delete the redirect James pepper. - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 19:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

personally i believe james qualifies because of this rule: The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, James created a pilot for a channel 4 show and is now working on a 6 episode series.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_Pepper"


 * Speedy Delete I did research for this so-called franchise before looking at the 'website'. I only found the franchise here in this article. I then went to the 'website'. I would recommend Wikipedia editors considering the future of this article to do likewise. The contact is a google mail address; the shop link doesn't work; there are two items in the pictures section; there is one item in the videos section. The first date in the history of the site is 1/1/09 (when the pictures were added) which puzzles me, as supposedly this is "the website which obtained a popular cult status towards the end of 2008.". Cult status must be getting easier to achieve if you can do it before the site is fully created, and especially with rubbish like this. I say nothing about the future television work, other than WP:CRYSTAL. Future work must be thoroughly and reliably referenced. So far, it isn't even referenced. On the whole, I think darts might be a better option for Mr Pepper on the showing so far. Peridon (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still not at all sure what is supposed to be being franchised - or to whom. Peridon (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Correction The shop link now seems to work. It takes you to a section at www.cafepress.com, which seems to be a sort of lulu.com for T-shirts: "Make your own t-shirts and gifts at CafePress.com". There are masses of things available with the Only Human Media logo (I suppose) on them. I think I'll pass. Peridon (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Peridon... i fear rudeness accomplishes nothing, but i will let it go. if you had properly researched this you wouldve found that the site has recently undergone a redesign and most content removed because it is to be used in the tv series.

update: article has been tweaked in an effort to satisfy the wiki fascists.

also... since when does an individuals choice of email client have and bearing on anything?

(Above post replaced by Peridon who considers it as a valid criticism to be answered.)


 * Response It is easy to view the history of a Wikipedia article or discussion. It is very difficult to see the history of an outside website's history unless one has admin powers for that site. To be used in the TV series? Maybe. (It looks to me like a fairly recent lash-up. Prove me wrong. I'm always happy to be PROVED wrong.) We still have no reliable evidence of the existence of this TV series so WP:CRYSTAL still applies. Email? I would have expected an enterprise of the notability claimed to have a more impressive or appropriate address. You are right that one's choice is one's choice. In business, little details like this matter, however. (It's like the presentation of a CV.) For example, info@fredbloggs.biz looks so much better than fredbloggs@yahoo.tx. Anyway, I still believe that notability has not been established. Peridon (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please sign posts with four ~ things. Makes life easier for the signing bot that seems to be asleep at the moment. Peridon (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The article pretty much says it already: "Pepper has said little about what the show will contain, maintaining he wants to keep the viewers in the dark for now." As long as the public is kept in the dark about what the show entails and when exactly it will air, there is nothing Wikipedia can reliably confirm, which in turn means we can't prove Pepper was the creator of a notable work. Notability for shows tends to be gained after they start airing, and that's the appropriate time to create an article about Pepper assuming other people have discussed him. (Side note: I recommend Pepper to do something about the website; it doesn't look too professional in my opinion. It wouldn't be a bad idea to learn design or shell out some cash to let someone else do it. The site violates some basic principles for good website design) - Mgm|(talk) 23:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say that all the points raised here are unimportant. ie you not liking the layout of peppers website? If you knew about business or even web hosting you would know that most of the time domain hosting comes with email hosting. the fact that someone chooses not to use it does not actually have any relavance whatsoever. but in the lack of any real evidence against peppers presence, this is all you have to go with. and since that warrants a deletion it proves that wikipedias arrogance gets in the way of its use as a reliable source which i think is sad. of course, when the series is screened there will an influx of false facts on james' page that will be left to rot here for eternity.
 * I only mentioned the site as a "side note". It didn't figure in my call for deletion. If the facts can be verified (as Peridon states below) I'd be happy to keep the article around; I just don't think it's possible. - Mgm|(talk) 08:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment We're very arrogant here. We do insist on petty details like verification of statements. And reliable sources, which we're not seeing here. (We are NOT a starting point for info but a recording and concentration of it.) If you have any, then for your own sake post them. We don't want to delete things that are right. But if we have no proof, we reckon things are not right. That's the policy. When and if the series is screened, you can remake the page. Some of us do know about web hosting and emails and domains. My point ties in with MGM's point about unprofessional look. Up to now, we're discussing the only things we can discuss, because you don't give us anything more. And we can't find it. Peridon (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no notable achievements are listed other than a vague and totally unsubstantiated claim about his website having gained "cult status". If subject has indeed created a series for Channel 4 (which again is completely unsubstantiated) then maybe he might be notable further down the line, but for now he most certainly isn't -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - pure nn-bio. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:54, 9 March 2009 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.