Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

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

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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
    I disagree that any of the sources cited provide in depth coverage about the account itself. Scuba 19:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain why The Business Insider [4], Rolling Stone [5], or The Messenger [6] would not be in-depth coverage about the account's activities? If you're talking about the person behind the account, there is some coverage as seen in the Personal life section, but that isn't the basis of notability, which is the posting. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, Internet, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia needs to have some standards for who gets an article. A random person with an extremely small internet following should not automatically get a Wikipedia page. Also, putting something in the "Chicago rat hole"? That's noteworthy of putting on an online encyclopedia? Please delete this page.--JonathanMRosenberg (talk) 06:51, 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]
  • Delete. Doesn't pass notability guidelines, the only thing she is known for would be Goblin mode, and that part of her article can be merged into the other article. Everything else is unnoteworthy and is only suitible of a fandom wiki, not Wikipedia. Jenkowelten (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    She is not known for only one thing - in addition to Goblin mode she has been in the news for being banned from Twitter. This was covered in the news, in reliable sources. DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have seen far more notable people have pages deleted for lack of notability. It is additionally fairly transparent that large portions of this article were written by its subject. O5225 (talk) 11:36, 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]
    @O5225, we already know which account she has previously edited under.[a] I'm wondering, therefore, which of the major authors of the article (viewable here) you are accusing here of being a WP:SOCK (which would get them blocked). And if you have no actual evidence, perhaps try to Assume good faith and make some actual arguments grounded in policy. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clear WP:SIGCOV from Insider, Rolling Stone, and Buzzfeed News. The articles are all about different topics so it doesn't seem to be a WP:BLP1E. Note: I saw the viral tweet calling for the article's deletion, but did not see the AFD until coming to the page to read the article out of curiosity. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 13:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Anything potentially relevant about this person should be merged to Goblin mode, clearly not relevant by themselves and does not meet notability guidelines outside of a very small niche. News articles will take any viral tweet and write headlines for a week, doesn't automatically make the twitter account notable. Too many primary sources too. Also, what on Earth is that part about the Chicago rat hole? jolielover♥talk 15:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also like to add, small mentions in articles do not warrant a page. Some sources mention her as a footnote, like the Vox article about the Hogwarts video game, saying "this person on twitter thought this" how on earth is this remotely relevant or notable? jolielover♥talk 16:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a misunderstanding of out notability guidelines. WP:BIO says at WP:BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Some sources do indeed only trivially mention the topic in passing, but for the things that she actually derives the bulk of her notability from, that is markedly not true since they are in-depth articles focused on her specifically (e.g. Goblin Mode/Insider [7]; Snickers/Rolling Stone [8]; Ban/Messenger [9]) -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:38, 17 January 2025 (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]
  • 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 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. 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]
  • 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 says A 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]
    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. 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]
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]

Notes

  1. ^ She confirmed that when she said that this image from User:JunLpermode was uploaded by her here
  • 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]
  • Weak delete. Not seeing any real sustained coverage. The sources that do exist are mostly pop culture esq articles that don't really cover the individual. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is my source assessment per the sources given above:
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes ~ WP:BUSINESSINSIDER Yes Two paragraph ~ Partial
No WP:INTERVIEW Yes WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS Yes Obviously, It's an interview ✘ No
No WP:INTERVIEW Yes WP:VOX Yes ✘ No
Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Yes ? Unknown
Yes Yes ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Here's the source assessment for the article itself:

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes No No mention, just a link to (Redacted) tweet ✘ No
Yes Yes No Same with the Washington Post one ✘ No
Yes Yes No No mention ✘ No
Feels like an inteview Yes WP:VOX No WP:TRIVIALMENTION ✘ No
Yes Yes No Brief Mention ✘ No
Yes Yes No One sentence that discussing the subject (Redacted) ✘ No
Yes Yes No just the tweet ✘ No
Yes Yes No just the tweet ✘ No
Yes Yes No just the tweet ✘ No
Yes Yes No just the tweet ✘ No
Yes Yes No WP:TRIVIALMENTION ✘ No
Yes Yes No No mention ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
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]
(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 [20] 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]
  • 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]
We likely do have an article on End Wokeness, since there's very good reason to believe it's just Jack Posobiec, [21], but there's no RSs making that connection. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Junlper_(4th_nomination)