[go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junlper (3rd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 keep‎. Could easily close as no consensus if only going by the considerable number of responses both to keep and delete, but enough keep comments include clearer, more thorough analysis of the quality of the sources. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Junlper

edit
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Junlper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks notability. The only significantly notable thing associated with JUNIPER is "goblin mode", which already has its own Wikipedia page (WP:BLP1E). Most information about JUNIPER could be added to that page. JUNIPER herself is not very notable. Many of the sources used as references mention her only in passing (usually because she responded to a more prominent person's post online) or are primarily about goblin mode. Macxcxz (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Macxcxz (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: As I have become more experienced here, I am more open to a deletion. I knew this would come eventually, because it was never properly addressed in the other two AfD's. The article hinges on goblin mode for notability a bit, but it should be kept in mind that she created/popularized other memes, and had added notability after her suspension. That's not just one event. Still, this article could easily be deleted and separate memes and events go to their own parent articles, simply referencing her. Junlper herself does only have a few articles about her, so I'm open to any outcome.
    Personisinsterest (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Just to note, I do not think JUNIPER's other publicised things (her suspension and the Snickers dick vein meme/hoax) represent anything notable, certainly not to the extent of goblin mode. The Snickers dick vein hoax had a Wikipedia page which was subsequently merged with several other articles before eventually redirecting back to JUNIPER's, which makes its lack of notability for Wikipedia standards apparent. Its just an internet meme, not every internet meme is notable just for being popular or having an internet-culture website write an article on it. If that were true, Chris-Chan would have had a Wikipedia page long ago. Same goes for her suspension, not very notable and lacked sustained coverage, and most coverage it got was not focused on her specifically. Macxcxz (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The example you chose is something of an exception. It is a BLP issue and not a notability issue. Toadspike [Talk] 09:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides the obvious BLP issues, any Chris Chan article might qualify for a WP:G10 deletion even. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    True. Bad example I suppose. Macxcxz (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you that the Snickers dick vein probably should not have its own page per WP:NOPAGE despite reliable source coverage. However, the bar for inclusion of individuals does not require them to be responsible for multiple things that meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, only significant coverage of them and/or their work in reliable sources. For example, Junlper's suspension would not meet WP:NEVENT and should not have its own page, but the reliable sources that did cover it lend to her own notability. The latest article discussing her suspension in any amount of depth was NBC in January 2024. Since she went viral in February 2022 for the goblin mode tweet, that is almost two years of reliable source coverage, which seems enough to avoid deletion under WP:SUSTAINED. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree this person is not notable. Has not accomplished anything substantial. Looks more like a personal blog than a serious article 47.184.171.15 (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I usually hate deleting articles but I feel that it should be done here. A good portion of the sources (Business Insider, The Focus, tweets, Forbes contributors) are unreliable; Outlook India and News 18 have been known to publish misleading articles in the past. Some others (Vox, Buzzfeed News) are interviews and therefore can't be used to establish notability. From what I've read in previous deletion discussions, Ms Junlper, has expressed wishes that this article be deleted. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Business Insider is marked as generally reliable for culture topics such as this one at WP:RSP. The Focus/Forbes contributor sources have now been removed, and the tweets are only used when the tweets are discussed in the article or under acceptable WP:BLPSELFPUB purposes. The guidance at WP:NEWSORGINDIA for Outlook India is primarily about hidden content, which is almost certainly not the case here, though the article subject is only mentioned in passingare multiple other sources that are far more reliable and in-depth. The previous deletion discussion happened amidst her ongoing controversy over the Twitter ban and seemed to indicate that she was indifferent about the page staying. Given that things have quieted down for her since then, do you have an updated statement from her on this? -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A random shitposter on Twitter should not get a Wikipedia article. This is the very definition of non-notable. 73.225.173.79 (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: non-notable person, all sources are either unreliable or interviews (which usually aren't counted as references), article is written like a personal blog or a Wikipedia parody. The person has done nothing to be included in an online encyclopedia. Necatorina (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed the sourcing in my comment below, but in respect to interviews from reliable sources, it depends on factors such as the split between interview/non-interview content (i.e. a detailed introductory section vs. jumping straight to questions) and how probing the questions are (i.e. factchecking vs. softballs). -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject is non notable and is article is just riding off the "goblin mode" thing Pyraminxsolver (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:BLP1E clearly does not apply here as the nominator and others suggest. To have an individual article, BLP1E's first prong only requires reliable sources to discuss article subjects in the context of more than one event, not more than one notable event. Here, the three biggest are clearly the creation of the "goblin mode" phrase and Snickers dick vein stuff in early 2022 and her Twitter ban in late 2023. Junlper was central to both events, so the third prong of BLP1E also does not apply. Having given multiple interviews, hosting a podcast, and making shitposts that have collectively gotten millions of views means that she is not a low-profile individual and the second prong would also not apply.
With BLP1E out of the way, the analysis turns to the coverage in reliable sources (i.e. WP:BIO, WP:ENT, WP:GNG). Merely being an internet shitposter does not mean that one is automatically non-notable. Nor does the coverage have to focus on the article subject as an individual versus their posts. Some of the stuff here could probably be cut down, but the above voters are mischaracterizing the state of the sources. There is substantial, in-depth coverage from reliable sources as multiple commentators noted in the previous, much more attended AfD found. Full, standalone articles including those from Rolling Stone, Business Insider, The Messenger, Techdirt should be sufficient to for notability purposes by themself, even if we cast aside the Indian news outlets that are possibly less reliable. Then there is the multi-paragraph introduction to the Buzzfeed News interview (which is exclusive to the article subject), multiple articles that devote a paragraph or two to her posts/their fallout (e.g. Mary Sue, NBC, The Advocate, Rolling Stone, Snopes, Vox), and an interview that technically does do some factchecking (Vox), which combined should be enough to meet WP:SIGCOVWP:BASIC.
As for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, the previous AfD seemed to indicate that she was indifferent to it being kept, and she may not be eligible for such a deletion because she is a public figure, though if she has indicated a preference now, that is worth noting. If the article is not kept, then the proper alternative to deletion is to merge some of the more relevant content to the goblin mode page. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC); edited 14:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Normally I'd raise an eyebrow over a third nomination in a year but the first two were misfires so it is fair enough to raise it again. That said, I think Patar knight has it right. She makes it over the line for Notability. There are multiple sources covering her for multiple things. Yes, some of those things are silly but that's not what matters. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To expand on the sources: There is the 2022 dedicated interviews by Buzzfeed News and Business Insider and the Rolling Stone article. That's three very solid sources where the coverage is substantial and primarily about her or her activities. OK, but is it sustained? It's not as intense as 2022, but we have The Messenger and The Advocate covering her in 2023 and NBC News in 2024. I think this is more than enough. Notability is not temporary. DanielRigal (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This looked like a unanimous Delete but there are two recent Keep arguments that should be responded to but those seeking a Deletetion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again. Reading the previous AFD, it seems like some editors, especially newer editors do not believe the article subject is suitable for a Wikipedia article. But we don't make these decisions based on our own opinions (or that of the article subject) but whether or not reliable sources establish notability. So, a source review, which one editor arguing for a Keep has done, would be most helpful at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep My position is basically the same as the other people who have said it should be kept. Notability is based on the reliability of sources, and Junlper definitely has a lot of reliable sources who have discussed her. Daemonspudguy (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a person is not notable.Gauravs 51 (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, repeating my position from the last AFD that on balance there seems to be just enough sources to scrape past GNG in my view. Obviously this passes WP:BLP1E as well. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Junlper_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1250046616"