Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junlper (4th nomination)

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 no consensus‎. If this were a pure vote count, then I'd be closing this as a clear Delete but, like previous AFDs (especially the 2nd), there has been canvassing going on and many participants here seem very new to the AFD process. So, this closure is neither an endorsement for Keep or Delete and just acknowledges the lack of certainty or policy-based rationales to determine a consensus opinion. If there is any outcome I'd like to influence, it's to state could there please be a 1 year moratorium on AFD #5? We don't need a new AFD on this article every few months. This is just one article out of close to 7 million and you can either work to improve this one or devote your time to many other articles that exist on this platform.

Also, if you wish to contest this closure, assemble some rock-solid arguments to support your challenge and head towards Wikipedia:Deletion review. Know that DRV is not a AFD redo, the participants there will only be judging this closure and whether it is a fair assessment of this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Junlper

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)

There is no substantial or notable coverage about the twitter account itself. All the sources talk about the twitter account glacially in passing from a group of posters, or goes into marginal coverage about a phrase they used. None of the cited references are substantially covering the page itself. Scuba 02:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment not commenting on the deletion, but should be noted that a semi-popular twitter account has called for the page’s deletion. Any new user voting on this, make sure to review previous discussions and infer an opinion from there. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Dang, talk about bad timing on my behalf, I guess that's what I get for not having twitter myself. Scuba 03:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    •Comment OP Here (i’m the semi popular account), i added a notice down below saying this, I should’ve of phrased my reply better. apologies for any trouble i’ve caused, i have no idea how wikipedia works so i hope you get this message) 2001:56B:9FE0:99A2:40DD:52BA:8C87:9EA3 (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I support the deletion of this Wikipedia article. The account in question seems to lack the notability and significance required for inclusion in Wikipedia. While it may have been a fixture in a niche online community for a time, its impact appears to have been fleeting and unsubstantiated. The claim to have coined a couple of popular internet jokes, even if true, doesn’t seem sufficient to justify a dedicated Wikipedia article, especially when there’s no credible evidence cited which supports the claim. This sort of anecdotal notoriety is better suited to discussions in forums or social media threads than a permanent spot on Wikipedia.
    Moreover, Wikipedia’s purpose is to document subjects that are verifiably notable and have enduring relevance, supported by reliable secondary sources. This inactive Twitter account's history of trolling and "shitposting" is far from unique or influential in the broader context of internet culture. Keeping this page sets a precedent for hosting articles about countless similar accounts, which would dilute the quality and purpose of the Wikipedia. 184.190.157.40 (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support this nomination and vote to Delete this page. Like others said the Goblin mode and Snickers dick vein articles already exist(their notability I personally also find questionable), otherwise this person is not notable aside from having a few rabid fans(and haters) that poison any discussion pertaining to them. Immensedata (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•Keep Frankly, I agree with reasoning behind this nomination (and the last three nominations), but Patar knight convincingly made the case for keeping it last AfD--I can't really put up an argument against what was laid out there, and I would encourage would-be deleters take a look at it. I would support pruning some of the more promotional/not notable material apparently added by JunIper herself, though. Theodore Christopher (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Patar Knight's response is not convincing when referring to BLP1E and certainly doesn't hold up in 2025. I still believe the article should be deleted because the Patar's argument overstates the junlper’s significance. The so-called "in-depth" coverage from sources like Rolling Stone or BuzzFeed News is more about the viral moments—"goblin mode" or the Snickers dickvein controversy—than Junlper. Junlper is not the focus of these pop news articles; the viral posts that junlper claims to have originated are. This doesn’t meet the standard of notability required for a biography, where the subject needs to be covered in a sustained, significant way as a person, not just as the source of a fleeting internet joke.
Patar's argument also leans heavily on the idea that being central to multiple viral moments negates BLP1E, but not every viral event has lasting cultural weight. These moments might have been funny or memorable in the moment, but that doesn’t mean they are significant enough to stand out against other internet jokes and be immortalized on Wikipedia. Otherwise, we’re opening the door to articles about every niche internet figure who happens to trend for a day or two.
This feels like an attempt to stretch the guidelines to justify Junlper's inclusion. The coverage cited, even if there’s a fair amount of it, doesn’t make Junlper notable in a way that fits the purpose of Wikipedia. Viral internet content thrives in forums and social media, but Wikipedia is meant to document subjects with enduring cultural, historical, or encyclopedic value. This article doesn’t meet that bar. Delete. 184.190.157.40 (talk) 05:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E does not require someone to participate in multiple notable events, only that they are discussed in the context of more than one event, which is clearly met here. Goblin mode is not the same as the Snickers Dick Vein hoax, nor was she banned for either of those things. In respect to the other two prongs, the article subject still runs an active podcast and posts on both Twitter/X and Bluesky, and was central to the three aforementioned events, so it's 0/3 on the criteria.
The proper frame of reference to analyze this is though the normal notability policies and the amount of coverage in reliable sources, and for people, WP:BASIC explicitly allows repeated insubstantial, but non-trivial coverage to meet the notability threshold (though I would argue the article contains multiple instances of substantial indepth coverage especially around the aforementioned big three events). -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Pruning some of the more promotional/not notable material apparently added by JunIper herself" would probably leave this article even more barren than it already is. Doombruddah (talk) 06:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is incredibly unlikely that she has been editing the article. The one account that plausibly seems to be hers has never edited the article. In fact, it has never edited Wikipedia at all, only the Commons. Also, as I understand it, she regards this whole thing with a mixture of amusement and embarrassment. (I mean, that's fair.) --DanielRigal (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this makes for an interesting thought experiment. If one were to prune all the promotional/non-notable material, as you say, I think it would illustrate visually the lack of notability, and just how frankly silly the article is.
Jeb1075 (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, that's a rationale to Delete Jeb1075 (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can anybody explain which specific parts of the article they think are promotional and/or why they think that the subject added them herself? Maybe it seems obvious to them but it certainly isn't obvious to me. DanielRigal (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: (edit conflict) It's close for me, but the repeated coverage addressing the individual behind the account and reference to their interactions with other notable people getting picked up in RS media/scholarship leads me to believe that, against all odds, this person is notable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your mention of RS scholarship made me check google scholar, and funnily enough there do appear to be scholarly articles based off this person's writing 1, 2. Having trouble accessing the full text of the second one, but the first one, which is a scholarly account based off one of her tweets, is interesting from a notability perspective. Arguable this and other coverage pushes toward notability per WP:AUTHOR #2, though that requires diving into whether "posting" can count as a body of work and I don't think that's necessary as the subject already meets GNG. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The academic commentary from July 2024 in the second link is cited in the article in the suspension section. It's accessible via the Wikipedia Library! [1]. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've already said my peace, but to reinstate:
If you are to keep this, it should absolutely be re-worded, it reads like parody. "American shitposter"? Really? Catturd is the only other article on this website (and i don't like it there either) that uses this word to describe a person. I would argue she isn't really known for much outside of just another leftist twitter account, and this article is probably the only place that defines this user as being known for "goblin mode", a term which is only really known for being Oxford's 2022 word of the year and not much else. Even that isn't very notable, it was chosen from weak competition such as "metaverse" and an irrelevant hashtag. It was also chosen from an online poll, which are usually not trustworthy. This leaves the titular "snickers dick vein", the shortest section of the article, as their second claim to fame. I don't think this is notable; people lie all the time on the internet. The "backlash" lasted less than a week before being fact-checked by Snopes and clarified by Snickers themselves the next day. That leaves us with a few viral tweets that some journalists thought were worthy of using. Not really notable.
Not to make a "give into bullying" argument but if an article has been nominated for deletion so many times with so many close votes, you should probably just delete it already. Doombruddah (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a term which is only really known for being Oxford's 2022 word of the year and not much else is not as strong an argument as you appear to think. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it is when that "award" is only selected by public poll, and hasn't been relevant in over 2 years. It has exactly zero cultural significance FullMetalKaiju (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selected from a shortlist prepared by lexicographers from Oxford University Press [2] It's not purely a public vote. One of the other choices was "metaverse", which was such a big thing that one of the biggest companies in the world renamed themselves to get on that (poorly thought out) hype train. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "metaverse" was not strong competition, and I don't think it's any surprise that people chose a meme word over a marketing term. Doombruddah (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not strong competition with the benefit of hindsight now that the metaverse hype has died down. Back in 2022 though? Not as clear. That was the peak of metaverse hype. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ehh I personally disagree. I remember it as a "facebook is doing some stupid shit, let's all make fun of them!" kind of deal. Doombruddah (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because it didn't live up to the hype. If the tech was actually better, accessible, and useful (yes, lots of counterfactuals), and we were regularly doing stuff on the metaverse, we would probably be looking at this like "how did a random meme beat out metaverse for WOTY? -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get the dislike of describing someone as a 'shitposter'. That's what some people do and are known for. Junlper is a shitposter; so is Catturd and dril. SWinxy (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously this is not a typical encyclopedic article, but I stand by my (extensive) arguments made in the previous AfD. BLP1E does not apply and the sources show continued and in-depth coverage over several years that meet our notability standards. Also, after the last AfD (which was only four months ago!), I found an academic commentary, not a peer-reviewed article, but still subject to some editorial oversight, analyzing her suspension through a critical theory lenses from July 2024. [3] (accessible via Wikipedia Library. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To expand on this, I endorse wasianpower's source analysis table below, gives us 4 RSs with substantial coverage (BI, RS, Messenger, Advocate) and 3 that are partial. Combined with the briefer mentions that are more than a namedrop in many of the other sources, this easily meets WP:BIO's WP:BASIC, which . She's not significantly above WP:BASIC, but she is clearly above it. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copying my comment from the prevous AFD for convenience. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:22, 24 January 2025 (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]
Delete: This article clearly does not meet any kind of encyclopaedic standard, there is an already-existing goblin mode article and beyond their involvement in that phenomenon the person covered is not worth an article. SelketCadmium (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to cite any Wikipedia notability standards (WP:NOTABILITY) that you believe this person does not meet? ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 16:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article contains multiple reliable sources, and is well-cited. Most of the news items have been archived in order to allow easy access to the articles. The best three articles are Messenger [10], Insider [11], and Rolling Stone [12]. In addition there are (minor) mentions from additional reliable sources including the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the Guardian. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple reliable sources does not automatically mean an article is warranted; most sources in the article only mention the user in a fleeting footnote, even simply linking a tweet. An alarming amount of sources are also primary ones from the user themselves (See their tweets and the Chicago rathole bit). People can have dozens upon dozens of sources and still not have an article, like Errol Musk. This particular Twitter user is often just mentioned as "oh, X topic is trending on Twitter today, let's link some popular tweet relating to the topic", like this source which literally just links the tweet, provides no additional commentary (and you can't even see the tweet), yet is linked as a source to the "In March 2023..." sentence. The source literally does not support that sentence at all. Though at face value it looks like a well cited article, it really is not. jolielover♥talk 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The three news sources I highlighted are not fleeting footnotes, but are news stories entirely centered on Junlper. DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a core of good, in-depth sources around the main sources of notability that you have consistently refused to address. Not everything in a biography is going to be about notable events. It is perfectly fine and normal for some biographical content to come from cases where the coverage is more minimal (and therefore contribute minimally to notability).
    The primary sources are used to cite statements that meet WP:BLPPRIMARY (i.e. post is supplementing an RS story) or are WP:BLPSELFPUB statements. They aren't factored into the notability calculus and don't need to in order to meet WP:BASIC.
    The Errol Musk analogue doesn't work because if the Musk family was not famous, but Errol had the same amount coverage, he would probably have his own page. But per WP:NOPAGE, even though he's notable, the level of coverage can fit into the parent page without issue, which isn't the case here.
    The reason why you can't see the tweet, is because the original account was permanently banned later that year, which the articles explains quite well and with in-depth commentary for news and academic sources. In any case, the tweet is visible in the archived version. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, reads closer to a fandom page than an Encyclopedic article. A majority of sources are either junk, fluff, or primary tweets themselves (most secondary sources simply mention a single tweet by the person and do not focus on them), and the ones that are by reputable sources barely make the standard for notability. Goblin mode is its own page, and a single tweet about a "dick vein" does not notability make, regardless of coverage (if anything, it should simply be on the Snickers page.) DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Many of the topics in this article are not relevant to anything important and anything relevant about Junlper should just be merged with the Goblin Mode article. Some sources in this article are also unreliable (such as X (formerly twitter) and Bluesky. Other references are articles in news outlets such as Vox and The Washington Post with only minor mentions of Junlper. 156.57.118.166 (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The cited sources focus on fleeting viral moments rather than providing substantial coverage of the individual. Any relevant content could be merged into related topics (which in this case may also not meet notability standards), but this standalone page lacks the enduring significance required for inclusion. Dynamokankaku (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Page has already survived several deletion requests and no new arguments or Wikipedia page policy violations have been made. The page has already met notability guidelines and nothing has changed since last deletion request other than the passage of time. Slippery slope arguments are also not particularly relevant when determining the proper application of Wikipedia policy. Ashleyisvegan (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    the page has not met notability guidelines, hence why it keeps getting proposed for deletion. Not sure how on earth it keeps surviving, especially since the last deletion attempt had more delete votes than keep votes. Scuba 19:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles for deletion is not a vote. The guidelines for discussion clear say: "Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself". DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please detail how you believe the article fails to meet any specific provision of WP:NOTABILITY? Thank you. Ashleyisvegan (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    because only one (at best) of the citations are talking about the account. The others are talking about some meme they posted. the account is not notable, but making a joke that a sinckers bar looks like a penis might be. Can you provide any detail to how this article passes WP:NOTABILITY?? Scuba 04:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while trying to avoid WP:NOTAGAIN and understanding that WP:CCC, I'm failing to see what has changed from the keep of just three months ago. I'll repeat my position from the last AFDthat on balance there seems to be just enough sources to scrape past GNG in my view. Obviously this passes WP:BLP1E as well. The closer should also be aware (and probably already is) of a lot of canavasing on both sides of this. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely agree with the last part there. I wasn't canvassed but I did see this first off-project. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How? A passing mention isn't substantial coverage on the account. Scuba 04:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While I stand by the above I'm adding to my !vote: Keep or Redirect to Goblin mode as a prefered WP:ATD. I personaly don't think enough thought in this discusion has been given to options beyond keep and delete. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does having 100,000 followers on twitter for posting memes really qualify you for a wikipedia article? If we keep this, we lower the bar so much that you could justify making an article for basically any niche internet micro-celebrity. If we really need to put a biography of this random shitposter on Wikipedia it can be a little blurb under the "goblin mode" article. Gore2000 (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gore2000, it may surprise you to learn that our Notability guidlines have basically nothing to-do with follower/viewer/subscriber statics (see WP:ARBITRARY), but instead on whether or not somebody has been covered by reliable sources. It is quite possible for somebody with 100 followers to pass WP:GNG while somebody with Millions doesn't; we simply don't care about these metrics. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So breifly being mentioned in a few news articles years ago justifies giving someone a Wikipedia page? Because that seems to be the logic here. What exactly is the person notable for? JonathanMRosenberg (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be specific, WP:GNG saysA topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Reasonable minds can differ on the Significant coverage question (and indeed I think it just about scrapes by), but new editors need to keep in mind that AFDs aren't votes, and their contribution is liable to be weighted lower by the closer if they don't refer to existing policies and Guidelines (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions may be worth a skim for common pitfalls). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'd argue that there is no significant coverage. More importantly, there's no sustained coverage. This person's Twitter account was briefly mentioned a handful of times in 2022/23 from mainstream sources, and they haven't been discussed since. JonathanMRosenberg (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We have references going into 2024. That's at least a two year period. I don't see how that's not sustained. And those are not mere mentions. There's a lot of those out there but I'm talking about the more substantial stuff. DanielRigal (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not surprising and I never assumed so. If we want to talk about reliable sources, almost none of the articles are solely about this twitter user, they only mention her in passing when talking about other subjects. I'd be willing to bet that this is a vanity article, especially considering how meticulously it documents her various accounts and when they were banned from twitter, using her own tweets as sources. Gore2000 (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above it's probably best not to cast aspersions about the authors of this article (list) of being sockpuppets, without any evidence. Focus on content.
    Failing WP:SIGCOV is an argument that can be had, although as I also said above I think there's an adequate amount across multiple events to add up to scraping by that requirement. Quite a lot of these articles give more than a passing mention, and are actually about June (e.g. [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]) although the amount of WP:INTERVIEW content mediates that slightly. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just don't think so. Firstly, Making memes about a snickers "dick vein" doesn't constitute notability. Neither does creating the viral "goblin mode" meme, or posting funny clapbacks on twitter and then getting banned, even if they do get brief moments of coverage in media. Secondly, even if memes on twitter were enough to be considered notable with adequate sources, there are a total of six sources that directly concern Junlper instead of briefly mentioning one of her tweets. Among these articles are posts from a tech blog and a BuzzFeed interview. Meanwhile, other sources are just her own tweets. Thirdly, the article is full of irrelevant information and random trivia. Why does there need to be an image on the article of her placing coins in a pothole in Chicago in reference to a viral internet meme? Why does it list what accounts she used and when they were banned? Why does it have a list of memes she tweeted that got even the slightest amount of media attention? Why does it have her profile picture? She's not notable, but even if she were, none of that is remotely relevant. This article reads like a post on a fandom wiki. Gore2000 (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it isn't that any specific meme etc. constitute notability, it's the collected coverage in sources of the twitter account/owner which makes it notable (in the estimation of quite a few people here). Just to be clear, it doesn't really matter if the coverage is for something that we think is stupid or trivial, the fact of coverage (and it's nature and depth) is what will decide the fate of the article. I and others think there is enough coverage, you don't. As I said this is on the line, but I'm yet to really see an adequate WP:ATA for any content not related the goblin mode, which might help me side with a WP:MERGE/WP:RDR/WP:DEL.
    As to your last point, they're really clean-up issues, which per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, really shouldn't come in to it. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – most of the references are about internet trends and only mention the user in passing as opposed to actually demonstrating notability DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 23:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --- How many people with 15 minutes of fame on the internet deserve a wikipedia page? Junlper doesn't fit into any of the Notability Guidelines. There was only one event that garnered her attention, a spat with libsoftiktok, so why not just include her name on the wikipedia page for Libs of TikTok? Meme scholar0 (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't one of her "events" have a whole article about it! Why wouldn't that be where it's redirected? Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 00:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Strong keep, see comment. There is currently an off-wiki canvassing campaign to WP:BLUDGEON this thread into getting the page deleted. The subject clearly meets WP:GNG, with 1, 2, 3. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As has been discussed before, this article being nominated for deletion again around the same time a (relatively not viral) post was made about it was just coincidence. Doombruddah (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not alleging bad faith on the part of the nominator by any means, I don't think Scuba intended this. However, the huge number of votes on this thread from IP users and users with few or no contribs are indicative of the canvassing, and that's the only real difference between this thread and the three previous AFDs for this article. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are an awful lot of WP:SPAs here, which is normally a sign of some sort of off site coordination. The post I've seen seems to have quite enough engagement that the WP:CANVASSING concern is serious, and looking at the replies and quote re-tweets should give some understanding of the extremes of feeling this person has stirred up in certain corners of the internet. Junlper herself also bluesky-ed [?] about this article which is why I warned about canvasing from all-sides here.
None of this justifies a speedy keep (imo) but it's laughable to suggest it won't have some effect. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 00:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With all the canvassing my thought is it's a bad idea to be having this discussion now. If there really needs to be another AFD for this article (which is already on it's fourth AFD, a bit ridiculous IMO), we should at least be waiting for all the off-wiki attention to die down. This thread has already become incredibly clogged with WP:ATA arguments from inexperience users and is borderline unusable. The combination of the inability to have a productive discussion mid-canvassing and the three previous AFDs was the basis for my speedy keep vote. Apologies that I could've explained that better in my original comment. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can trust the closer to be able appropriately weight the obvious non-policy based WP:SPA !votes. And we still have a week (possibly weeks with relists) of time for more experienced editors to way in. If the canvasing at MKuCR4 didn't cause that one to be voided I think we're not going to here. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 00:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any voiding will be done at closing. For example, the second AfD was basically a non-consensus result because of the canvassing. Looks like the post is over 150k views now, which is crazy. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no. It doesn't pass WP:GNG, not by the wildest stretch of the imagination. As seen in the chart provided below, only ONE source goes into any depth on the account, how on earth can you argue that passes notability? Scuba 04:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m a little confused by the focus on “account” here. The article states the subject is a “shitposter on twitter” not “the name of a shitposting account”. It uses she/her pronouns to refer to the subject, not it/it’s. It has Category:Living people. It has a BLP tag on the talk page. Etc, etc. The sources clearly allocate sigcov to the subject, i.e., the person who's making these posts. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coming back to this discussion, I realize my speedy keep vote is no longer relevant after two relists. Changing to strong keep to reflect the fact that I find the arguments for delete utterly unconvincing, and I could not be more certain that this subject meets GNG. It would be a travesty and a flouting of Wikipedia guidelines for this page to be deleted. Even if you somehow think this article does not meet GNG, per Patar Knight it would then meet WP:BASIC. There is also no good ATD here — even splitting and merging it into the three or four pages which touch the subject would lose well sourced, due and reliable information. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to point out a post made on January 16th. "when can we take this shit down from wikipedia"[19]. This keeps happening. You guys are on twitter too much. I've seen too many times on Wikipedia where an article goes viral on social media and someone takes action. Think for yourselves, don't take cues from Godfrey G. Golden. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Honestly given the amount of information on the page deleting it would need it moved back onto other pages such as Snickers dick vein being added back to the main snickers or merging half this page into the goblin mode article that itself seems to give it notability since this articles existence is the reason that information isn't curently on those articles. If that's done there's a likely chance we just end up recreating this page because some people would rather have an Internet troll/shitposter/"influencer" activities on their own page instead of being littered across a handful of other articles.
2A01:4B00:AD37:D300:5949:8C12:412:23D9 (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
. Keep I'd say Catturd and Junlper and a similar level of cultural relevancy. Both have pages, so if this one goes, the other should, too. This isn't a political statement, I have an unfavourable view of both individuals, I'm just attempting to be fair. NesserWiki (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jun1per had 3 seconds of fame, Catturd is still relevant to some point. I am not discussing this in a partisan manner but if Jun1per had remained relevant until now, this discussion wouldn't exist. LexigtonMisiENG (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • Keep Strong keep. The nomination is very unclear but it seems to fundamentally misunderstand the article. This is not just about a Twitter account or a "page". (I am not even sure what the nomination means by "page".) This is about a person and we have adequate Reliable Sources to show that she is notable for multiple reasons and that, taken together, those add up to sufficient notability. These are not all passing mentions, as some have claimed. She does get a lot of passing mentions but there is sufficient substantial coverage too. 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. It's not the highest level of notability but I think this is more than enough for an article. Notability is not temporary so it is not like she could have become any less notable since we last had an AfD on this and came to that conclusion. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm editing my !vote to change to a strong keep. Even though I think that she is not over the line for Notability by much I am 100% convinced that she is over the line. Even ignoring the bad faith interventions, this discussion has been characterised by people claiming that there is no valid significant coverage, being shown significant coverage, most of it from good sources, and then continuing to claim that there is no valid significant coverage. Some other people are voting delete because they draw the line for "significant coverage" in different places, and that's fair, within reason, although they are not making a convincing argument for where the line should be drawn instead or why. I think that some people are, in good faith, unable to see how a shitposter can possibly be notable. The thing is that anybody can be notable if they meet the criteria, irrespective of what they are notable for. People have become genuinely notable for far dumber things than "The Snickers Dick Vein". Some people are just refusing to acknowledge the significance of the coverage we have in front of us. Starting from the confusing nomination, which never articulated a coherent argument for deletion, this whole thing has become a trainwreck and I think it is time to end this fiasco. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is my source assessment per the sources given above:

Here's the source assessment for the article itself:

With regard to The Advocate, while I don't see any specific WP:RSN discussion that gave a definitive conclusion, the times it is discussed seem to show it is generally thought of as reliable. The Messenger (going of the wiki page) less so. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None the less 2 sources seems to not meet the criteria for WP:SIGCOV, well at least for me Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What WP:SIGCOV says is:"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
The Advocate devotes the last half of its article (several paragraphs) to the situation around her ban, how various figures reacted to it, and how Musk reacted in turn. Junlper is directly mentioned in a non-trivial way, even if the main topic is Alejandra Caraballo. It just isn't the most detailed article about Junlper, so it hasn't been bandied around as much.
The Messenger devotes an entire article to Junlper's ban. The concerns around The Messenger in general don't seem to apply to this article in particular (see my post below), which appears to be original reporting. Both of these sources would meet SIGCOV. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By your own admission, half of its article revolves around the ban but not the account itself. Scuba 04:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Advocate article [20] describes the actions that Junlper took to get banned, the details and timelines around the ban, as well as other the reactions of other public figures to the ban. The ban is of both the account (as technically implemented) and of the person behind the account (you are technically not allowed to evade the ban and start a new account). Coverage of an account's ban is coverage of the account and it's ridiculous to try and separate the two unless you are trying to argue that a Twitter ban of Junlper article would be notable and ought to be created, which you're not. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Looking at the first table, I'm not sure where the red Xs in the GNG column come from. They are not automatically supported by WP:INTERVIEW. The two main points of WP:INTERVIEW are to be aware that interviews repeat claims made by the interviewee without fact checking, making such claims primary sources, and also that PR pieces are very often disguised as interviews. It says"A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability. Elements of interviews include selecting the subject, contacting the subject, preparation of questions, and writing supplemental material such as a biography." I think the interviews here are more of the good sort than the bad and can't be anything less than a "Partial", maybe more. I'd also point out that The Advocate (magazine) is a print magazine and, to quote the article,"the oldest and largest LGBTQ publication in the United States and the only surviving one of its kind that was founded before the 1969 Stonewall riots". It may not be listed on WP:RSPS but there is a good reason to assume it Reliable. I think that's a green tick in the GNG column. The Messenger (website) was a troubled publication but it was a genuine attempt at a news site written by real journalists. I think that's a "Partial" in the GNG column. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Messenger hired a ton of respectable journalists and editors. The specific journalist in question [21] has multiple years as a journalist in radio and local television. The specific article in question looks like original reporting, whereas some of the concerns about the The Messenger was content farming other publications in its earlier days, which doesn't seem to apply here. I would put it as counting towards GNG. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the second table and I see a whole column of red. I'll just make the general point that not all sources are there for GNG purposes. Some, most even, are there to verify specific content in the article. Junlper gets a lot of brief coverage and passing mentions. Some of them get used in the article for specific valid purposes. Passing mentions may not add to Notability but they can never subtract from it! --DanielRigal (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your contribution and input since it is perhaps the only argument for deletion here that makes specific references to Wikipedia guidelines and avoids using any WP:ATA. However, I think you make a mistake in seperately assessing biographical sources covering the subject and other sources covering events involving the subject. I believe you will agree that the sources in the "source assessment for the article itself" you've created do indeed provide significant coverage for the events that the subject is a specifically named participant in. Of course, being involved in notable events in and of itself does not make one worthy of their own Wikipedia page, but that's exactly where the sources in your "source assessment per the sources given above" come in. Interviews are not automatically disqualifying and have already been used to cite information about online personalities who would otherwise be anonymous (e.g. Dril). The breadth of her (the subject's) involvement in events covered by reliable sources combined with her own personal significant coverage is exactly why she has a page in the first place, and I believe it makes more sense for it to be that way rather than scatter mentions of her across a number of separate pages. Ashleyisvegan (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Business Insider piece, which is entirely about Junlper, should fully count towards GNG, since the source is considered generally reliable at RSP for cultural topics, which this would fall into. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Buzzfeed News interview isn't just a straight up interview, it includes a three paragraph blurb about the article subject at the top, so that arguably meets WP:SIGCOV, and woud definitely qualify as non-trivial coverage that meets BIO's WP:BASIC. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it looks like some sources from the article (e.g. the academic commentary) are missing from this. Maybe a script issue? -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. Jenkowelten (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As someone who regularly uses Twitter, there are far more notable twitter accounts than her who don't have pages. Millions of people know who right wing troll End Wokeness is, but we have no article for them, likewise notorious account Kirawontmiss is infamous on the app and yet again-no wikipedia page. I really do not think this person is notable, Wikipedia is not KnowYourMeme. If we cover her, there's countless other twitter accounts with similar or greater reach who should be considered for articles. Claire 26 (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the notability criteria you will find that there are very few such people who meet it. For reference, there are only 4 people in Category:Shitposters. There are also articles for far-right social media based entities like Libs of Tiktok and Gays Against Groomers, so it is not like we never cover them. If they become notable then we do. If you know of any others that are notable then you could start an article but please take care to make sure that they really are notable otherwise you could waste a lot of time on an article that gets deleted. Btw, End Wokeness is a redirect to Springfield pet-eating hoax, where they are mentioned, so they get their 1.5 seconds of fame too. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And since Junlper is mentioned in Goblin mode, that should also be her 1.5 seconds of fame. But neither deserves their own article. JonathanMRosenberg (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We likely do have an article on End Wokeness, since there's very good reason to believe it's just Jack Posobiec, [22], but there's no RSs making that connection. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I really don't like how accounts that have been here 10-20 years keep defending the existence of this article just because they share common views with this creator. Trusting seniority is a good thing in my opinion but it can have consequences and cause misunderstandings in websites like this. This person was notable 3-4 years ago, they've lost thier notability ever since and its like keeping a corpse outside for everyone to see. You can trust me that more than 80% of people on Twitter do not know who she is nowdays. There are people who are notable that keep getting nominated for deletion, but this article SHOULD be deleted. One or two senior wikipedians liking what this person did 3-4 years ago does not mean we can keep this practically deceased person in terms of popularity around. LexigtonMisiENG (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Disregarding the invective, this argument is explicitly contrary to policy: WP:NOTTEMPORARY. DanielRigal (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @LexigtonMisiENG, you can plausibly argue that the subject of the article is not notable. However claiming that the subjectwas notable but has sincelost thier notability isn't really a viable position per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. If we say something was notable (per Wikipedia's definition) at some point, we're saying it is notable now. Perhaps you were thinking of the common heuristic WP:10YEAR, but when we invoke that we are still saying the thing was never really deserving of an article at the time (and Consensus has just caught up with that reality). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 19:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, I !voted keep and think that dropping pills in the concrete impression of an unfortunate squirrel is insanely lame. Perhaps I'm just old-fashioned... ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking at the arguments from a very policy-based perspective (and not at all from !votes count), the consensus is leaning towards deletion, mainly due to the perceived lack of sustained, substantial coverage focused specifically on the Twitter account itself, rather than the viral moments associated with it. The suggestion to merge relevant content into related articles like Goblin mode appears to be gaining consensus too. Discussions are still ongoing, so a relist would do.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. After reading some of the sources listed here, I feel like while the sources individually don't really add up to much in my opinion, I also do feel like there's enough reporting on her and the shitposts that it makes it over the line into notability. Procyon117 (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment RE: the relisting; It is hard to see how, policy-wise, the consensus is leaning toward deletion when very few users in favour of deletion cite any policies whatsoever and their arguments are specifically rebutted by WP:ATA. I am admittedly quite new to editting on Wikipedia, but I am also unsure how it makes sense to apply Wikipedia policy based on a perception of a lack of notability. I know Wikipedia has no rules, but when some users make logical arguments in reference to actual policy revolving around notability, and other users simply disagree and do not engage with those arguments, it's hard to see how consensus could at all suggest deletion without regarding it as a vote, which it is not. The account itself and the user behind it has been profiled numerous times over the span of almost a year and a half (is that not considered sustained?), and reliable sources directly link the account as a participant in or sole originator of at least 3 different events. Is it not the combination of those types of coverage (person + events) that make up the basis of every single Wikipedia article about a person/online personality? It might not be covered as extensively as accounts like Dril or ElonJet, but I do believe it at least deserves the page that is has now based on the level of its notability. Ashleyisvegan (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can almost understand relisting but the comment accompanying it feels more like a "delete" !vote than a reflection of the arguments so far. I don't think that any harm is being done by relisting, as the disruptive !voting seems to have stopped now, but I think that the only credible outcomes to choose from are "keep" and "no consensus" and I can't see how this could possibly change. A merge would lose all the stuff about the Twitter ban, which is Reliably Sourced, and nobody has actually !voted "merge" at all. It only gets mentioned by people who are !voting "delete". I worry that it might be tempting to take the source analysis tables seriously. That would be a big mistake. At a first glance a table may give an impression of objectivity but tabular content is as fallible as any other, in this case, the contents fundamentally misunderstand the validity of the sources to such an extent that I think that it renders the tables completely unhelpful. DanielRigal (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 to this, I also disagree with the relist comment. I'll try to spend some time working this afternoon on another SAT, as I also agree the above one is not an accurate reflection of the article's sourcing. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To note, I already !voted keep above, but for the purposes of the discussion, I created this SAT:
  • Delete. This page reads more like a fandom wiki article than anything we should expect from Wikipedia (picture of the Chicago rathole without even a reference to back it up, really?) This person who was never that relevant, AFAIK isn't even on twitter anymore and is only survived by this rather ridiculous article. What's happening here in my opinion is that a few of her fans are basically abusing Wikipedia's notability rules in order to make some sort of vague point. If anyone who has been mentioned more than twice in any inane Buzzfeed-style "You won't believe what controversy is rocking twitter today!" newspiece so the article writer can buff up the piece with a few Disqus twitter embeds deserves an article where they get to show off their pilgrimage to the Chicago rat hole, then we need to speedily create a wikiproject to address it as there are thousands of Wikipedia articles missing about all of these definitely relevant twitter accounts. I'm sorry if I sound bitter, but I'm honestly just dismayed at the incredibly lax standards of the article which can't even be edited anymore since it has been locked. If anything should come out of this, at least rewrite the article to be more in line with Wikipedia's standards for articles about people.
Andro124 (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This page reads more like a fandom wiki article isn't an argument to delete per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP andAFAIK isn't even on twitter anymore doesn't really have anything to do with our notability guidelines, per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. ThePicture of the Chicago rathole is illustrating a sentence in the article (that has a source) but the image itself doesn't (necessarily) need a source per WP:OI (and is from the subject of the article).If anyone who has been mentioned more than twice isn't the argument presented in the above table. She's been mentioned in <20 reliable sources. She is significantly covered in 4 sources (again if we take the above table) which is what matters for WP:GNG. And whether or not there are thousands of other twitter accounts that you believe are more deserving of an article also isn't a reason to delete (per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes let's take a look at that source actually:
In a city known for its iconic landmarks such as deep-dish pizza, the Bean, and the Willis Tower, Chicago has added a peculiar yet fascinating attraction to its repertoire – the "Rat Hole" in Roscoe Village. This viral sensation has become a hotspot for both locals and tourists alike, who are making "pilgrimages" to witness the rodent-shaped splat mark on a sidewalk.The Rat Hole, formed by the individual imprints of toes, claws, legs, and a tail attached to a body, has captured the imagination of social media users and visitors to Roscoe Village. Winslow Dumaine, a local resident, humorously thanked visitors to the Rat Hole in response to his original post, signifying the growing popularity of this peculiar landmark.
The Lakeview Roscoe Village Chamber of Commerce has embraced the phenomenon, launching a contest to name the Rat Hole. Drawing inspiration from popular culture rodents like Remy and Mickey Mouse, the community is encouraged to submit their suggestions until January 18. The top five names will be selected, and the final decision will be made through a community vote. The Rat Hole has become more than just a visual curiosity; it's now a site for offerings. Tourists and locals alike are bringing coins, flowers, money, cheese, and even shots of alcohol to pay homage to the rodent-shaped impression on the sidewalk.Social media is abuzz with posts depicting various offerings, with one user even mistaking it for a potential Banksy piece.
TikTok user @Marshian_Rover shared a video of someone pouring what appears to be Malört, a famous Chicago liquor, into the hole as an offering. Despite the harsh winter weather with temperatures reaching -4 degrees, people continue to visit the Rat Hole, creating a constant stream of curious onlookers. [...]
As we can clearly see Juniper's picture is only used as an illustration of the ongoing phenomenon, she is neither named nor commented upon in the body text, we only get an embed of her tweet which the author thought would make for a good insert. By any sane standard a reference like that would not count towards notability. It's the digital equivalent of a using a traditional newspaper article having a passage like "In this Michigan roadside diner, trucker Billy Bob Bobson isn't so sure about the incoming administration's tax hikes" to argue that Bobson is notable in his own right. Merely appearing in an article as illustration of a phenomenon does not constitute noteworthiness. Andro124 (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you honestly believe anybody here is arguing that the that the 'Rat Hole' contributes to Junlper's notability? I think everybody can see that the source is passing and doesn't contribute to WP:GNG. However, you can in-fact use content from sources that don't contribute to notability (Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles per WP:NNC) assuming it's not WP:UNDUE. It's one sentence so I don't see it being undue. Again, though, all of this is immaterial because, whether or not we include a single sentence sourced to a passing mention is not important to whether the article should be deleted and is not what AFD is for. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will not be WP:BASHed into submission when it's plain as day that the article contains non-encyclopedic content that is more interested in promoting its subject than being a useful Wikipedia article. Andro124 (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of responding to any of the points I raised, you decided that because I used a couple of links to some actual policies and guidelines (a thing, I note, you have thus far not done at all) you could discount them. The point is that anarticle contain[ing] non-encyclopedic content is not (in and off itself) a reason to delete an article based on our current policies. As you seemed not to know this I linked you the pages that could explain this to you. If you are uninterested in making arguments grounded in that PaGs (or responding to other's attempts at doing so) I'm not sure what your hoping to gain commenting at this AFD.
If you think linking to policy is disqualifying in an AFD I'd suggest turning up to a few others and not taking your advice from essays who's text hasn't been significantly added to in over 15 yrs. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 16:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's apt here, you use them pretty aggressively and IMO unnecessarily. Doombruddah (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have further problems with my conduct I ask you post them to my talk page, as they contribute nothing to the discussion at hand. Focus on content, not on editor conduct. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that wikipedia essays have an expiration date, sorry for that. Andro124 (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's definitely an argument to be made that some of material that only uses a tweet of Junlper's without further discussion should be shortened and/or combined to avoid WP:UNDUE issues. However, that's a problem solved by editing and discussion, not deletion. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hatting this as its becoming tedious and really needs to stop. It isn't related to deletion discussion and dosn't need this much digital ink spilled on it Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Essays represent one editor's, or a small group of editor's opinions. Taking advice on what is acceptable at AFDs from a very old essay is inadvisable because what is acceptable at AFDs (or even VFDs, which wasn't too far in the past when this essay was created) has changed over the past 20 years. I mean this is an essay that until 3 years ago asserted that that some person liking something is a demonstration of notability, which in case you don't know is pretty patently ridiculous. I am genuinely sorry if you felt offended by my use of policy links to support my argument, but this is standard practice (and to some extent expected) in deletion discussions, and a link to an essay that was last referenced at an AFD in 2018 is unlikely to change that.Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is the last I'll say on that matter as this has got to the point of pointless wikilaying over an essay of all things. Once again if you want to continue this discussion (or anything else not related to the deletion of the article) I advice you do so on my talk page (or yours or at WP:ANI; just anywhere that's not here). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASH is not a justification for not making a policy based argument. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Per WP:BLPDD, articles about living people should "Limit content on non-public figures to what's relevant." Per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, regardless of whether they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." Now go and wikilawyer around this and explain how the vast majority of the article's in-passing references to the subject somehow skirt around this. I've checked and both of those WP articles were last edited in 2023 and 2025 so they hopefully pass your stringent recency requirements. Andro124 (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BLPDD and NotPublicFigure are not notability guidelines, they are about how to structure and source an article on a BLP and make decisions on what material should be included those articles. It has nothing to do with whether or not an article should be kept or not (for more information see WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP). If you feel the article is lacking in one of the areas mentioned by the guidelines, you are more than welcome to propose the change on the talk page, or gain experience editing on other articles to get up to WP:ECP, then come back and work on it. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for at least making clear you're not in the least interested about fixing the article if your only two suggestions are either to ask you, a person who's been very clear about their partiality to said article, to prune it or the rather farcical requirement that the lowly peasant that I am should go on a quest to go and edit 500 pages before being bestowed the privilege of being able to edit the page of such an august topic as the subject of this article. Andro124 (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever help it may be, you can see WP:Edit requests if you're genuinely interested in helping improving the article. If you look at the article history, I don't believe I've ever edited it, and I likely would not be the one looking at the edit request, rather one of the many contributors who have worked on it and are watching the page. You'd be making this request on the article talk page (Talk:Junlper), not my talk page (User talk:wasianpower), though you are welcome to leave a message there as well if you need any assistance. The 500 edit threshold for ECP also doesn't have to be on 500 different pages, you can make 500 edits to the same page and that would count (plus you're already at 120). From experience, 500 edits goes by much quicker than you'd think. I do genuinely hope this helps, Wikipedia is always in need of more dedicated editors and if you're actually interested in improving the article that's great. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be difficult to argue that the article subject is not a public figure given that they've given interviews, host a podcast, and regularly makes posts that have cumulatively millions of impressions (see WP:LOWPROFILE). Even if it did apply, there is a distinction betweenmaterial relevant to the person's notability and the reason(s) why someone is notable. For example, a passing mention of a professor getting appointed to an acting administrator role would be fine to include as being relevant to their notability, even if it's not the reason why they are notable (i.e. their research), while a social media post that would otherwise be okay to use per WP:BLPSELFPUB about how they enjoy rock climbing shouldn't be included (unless perhaps they're some kind of sports or exercise researcher). -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Do you honestly believe anybody here is arguing that the that the 'Rat Hole' contributes to Junlper's notability?"
I mean... you just did. Doombruddah (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Read again what I actually said: in response to you saying the picture of the Chicago rathole without even a reference to back it up, really? I saidThe Picture of the Chicago rathole is illustrating a sentence in the article (that has a source) but the image itself doesn't (necessarily) need a source per WP:OI (and is from the subject of the article). What I did not say was that this passing source contributes to notability (it obviously doesn't), only that it justifies the image being there. As I have said to you over and over again (and you have seemingly ignored) whether or not this sentence or that image are in the article has nothing to do with deletion and shouldn't be discussed here as AFD is not clean-up Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Incredibly hard to cleanup an article that has been locked so only "verified users" can touch it you'll note. If a small clique refuses to accept any criticism and improve their pet articles, the only tool left are AfDs. Andro124 (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I checked an article being extended confirmed and/or individual editors disliking how it's written are not reasons to delete. Perhaps, you could point me to that policy/guideline (I'm quite happy for you to use a shortcut to do so). As to your second point, no, there are in fact a great many places you should take a content/conduct dispute before AFD, the NPOV Noticeboard, Administrators' noticeboard and Dispute resolution noticeboard to name but three.
Of course the first port of call should be the article's talk page, a place you've never made a request to. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found another source which could count towards GNG [24]. It uses the subject's full real name; in other sources I read she had expressed a desire for it not to be used, but that's more of a concern for if it is added to the article. I'll add this to the SAT as well. IMO GNG has already been established for the subject, but just wanted to add this information. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe that this source counts towards GNG, as it's mostly Junlper doing the talking (WP:PRIMARY in this case), and the rest of the article does not speak much about her (not WP:SIGCOV). Based5290 :3 (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I put it as partial on the chart, it's definitely not a full point towards GNG. It does have some commentary on her claims as well as ~2 paragraphs that are about her rather than just quotes from her. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good catch on using her real name. There's another one from WaPo [25] using her real name that has a paragraph on her views, which also very briefly covers her social media presence.
    It's still partial at best when analyzing through WP:GNG's WP:SIGCOV lenses, but it's important to note that WP:BIO's WP:BASIC allows non-trivial, but not SIGCOV-levels of coverage, to be combined to meet the notability standard. While I think there's clearly enough sources to meet GNG as it stands, the stuff that's marked partial in your source analysis table would still go towards meeting BASIC. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per LexigtonMisiENG and Miminity, this is probably going to end in "no consensus" which is a shame. I really have nothing to add to this conversation except that this conversation reminds me of this sites' problems with Systemic bias for coverage. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seeing as how this was relisted again (to reiterate, I !voted keep), I wanted to get out in front of any new votes/comments that might be made by people who were not previously involved in the discussion and/or did not read all of it. Remember, an article has to meet the following criteria in order to exist: notability, verifiability, neutrality, and not have any original research. Let me summarise, in my opinion, what has been established so far about this article in regards to those criteria:
Notability: The subject of the article has sustained, significant coverage from at least 4 different reliable sources as well as non-trival but non-significant coverage from at least 20 other reliable sources. The coverage of these articles spans a time period of at least a year and a half. The subject is notable for more than one event per WP:BLP1E. It does not matter if you believe that the subject is no longer notable in the present day (WP:NTEMP). It does not matter if you think it sounds "silly" or think it belongs in a fanwiki (WP:ARTN). I encourage you to recognise that there are many other Wikipedia pages with even fewer sources. I encourage you to realise that, per WP:NOPAGE, there is no other page this one could be neatly merged into (which only one person has called for as an ATD) without losing significant coverage. As most arguments in this AFD debate revolve around the subject's notability, I would encourage new contributors to read all conversations so as to not give undue weight to just one point of view that one may already be biased toward.
Verifiability: The article makes no unsubstantiated arguments about the subject or the events she was involved in. The only disagreement seems to be whether or not the subject suggested that Elon Musk is a pedophile "satirically" or not, which to me does not seem like a particularly great reason to delete the entire article per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The only times the subject herself is cited is to verify her birthday and her Twitter handle, which IMO fit into WP:ABOUTSELF just fine.
NPOV: The article, in my opinion, includes pretty much the entire breadth of the subject's coverage and does not give undue weight to fringe theories or sources. No one in favour of delete has cited any NPOV problems, but if there were any, it should be discussed in the talk page first before deletion is considered.
No original research: All claims made are backed up by reliable secondary sources with no analysis of primary sources that could qualify as original research. The only part of the article that the subject herself contributed to was the picture of the rat hole. While I believe this doesn't count as original research, nor is it significant enough to have the entire page rely on it, it is also not particularly a justification for deleting the entire article.
Most of my summary is not my own original arguments but rather derived from the consensus of arguments so far generated throughout this disgussion. Though I understand that consensus can change, I would like to remind everyone- as I stated in my original !vote post- that this article has already survived a prior deletion attempt. Since then, nothing about the article has changed (other than folks actually finding more coverage of the subject). All arguments put forward in favour of deletion so far have either been directly addressed in this discussion or describe problems that are surmountable. Of course, this post is not meant to disuade people from contributing but to encourage them to engage with the discussion and arguments that have already been made so as to possibly move toward a clearer consensus (since, judging by the double reslisting, apparently it needs one). Remember, AFDs are not votes. Thank you. Ashleyisvegan (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2025 (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_(4th_nomination)&oldid=1274527537"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junlper (4th nomination), released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.