User:Junglecat/marriage ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD) User:UBX/onemanonewoman ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Discriminatory userboxes (also included a mis-named userbox in template space, which should not be restored - userboxes belong in user space)

There are any number of process problems here. For one, these userboxes were nominated along with two grossly inflammatory ones that were in no way appropriate. They should have been considered separately from the beginning. Secondly, at the point that the discussion was closed, it had run for just over a day and purely from a head-counting standpoint, keeps were outnumbering deletes. The closer substituted his own opinion for the opinions of those commenting - there is no policy reason that demands the deletion of these userboxes. It is a fact of life that for the majority of the world, marriage is between one man and one woman. Whether you agree with that or not, it is the law of the land. In the US, it's a hot button political issue, but every President, including President Obama, has opposed same sex marriage. Stating such could not reasonably be called so inflammatory as to demand speedy deletion. On the other hand, User:Tal642/my userboxes/SanerWorldNoReligion, that neither this closer nor anyone advocating the deletion seems to have a problem with, advocates either the extermination or forcible conversion of people of faith. I wouldn't be at all opposed to abolishing all user boxes that advocate a political position beyond simply stating a party or religious identity (eg, I am a Libertarian, I am a Catholic, I am Islamic), but until such time as that happens, selective enforcement of unapproved points of view is not a positive for the project and only contributes to hurt feelings. Personally, I am offended by a great deal of userpage content, but I recognize that I have no right on Wikipedia not to be offended. I also disagree with those who would call for a national so-called "sanctity of marriage amendment" or other such things. But this isn't about what I agree with - it's about whether or not it is appropriate to censor unpopular points of view in user space or for administrators to substitute their own preferences in place of community decision. Thank you. --B (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As some might know, I was amongst those that helped bring along "the new deal" - nowadays called WP:UBM in midst of the drama that was called "the userbox wars". I do not agree with the views of the people using the "one man and one woman" userbox. But I respect, and protect, their right to state their views, be it per userbox or text on their userpage (which a userbox, in essence is). Would one ask a user to delete the text "I believe marriage to be between one man and one woman" from his userpage? Would you go to MfD to enforce your request? But I digress... My three main issues with the "fast deletion" were that it looks like the closer did rather count the !votes instead of the arguments, and that he did not allow the MfD run its course. The third issue is that the neutrally worded userbox was listed with two (I persume) truly obnoxious ones, and that the result was tainted by the obnoxious userboxes. Therefore I suggest Undelete and Relist at MfD CharonX/talk 22:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Requester may wish to reconsider that DRV statement. The law of which land? The tenet of which faith? Durova^Charge! 22:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Same-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, as I said in my statement, is not the law of the land in both the vast majority of the world as a whole and, specifically, in the vast majority of the English speaking world. If I am misinterpreting this map, please feel free to correct me. As for "tenet of which faith", I'm not sure what you are talking about. --B (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without qualifications, that nomination suggests an opinion that the practice is legal nowhere and endorsed by no religion. That's not quite true, is it? People who belong in such places and/or to such faiths might prefer to be acknowledged. No opinion on the DRV in question, just saying. Durova^Charge! 23:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Huh? I didn't say anything about religious opinions on same-sex marriage. I don't think it's necessary in a DRV to acknowledge the litany of people who do or do not support same-sex marriage. The religion userbox is unrelated to this one - the only contrast is that there is support for the "approved POV" of anti-religion while there is opposition to the "unapproved POV" of opposition to same-sex marriage. This is, as with many other things, an institutional bias in Wikipedia - it tends to be more liberal than society as a whole. --B (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rapid suppression of dissenting opinion doesn't seem terribly liberal to me. Opera hat (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • As someone who has followed US politics since I was old enough to understand such things, I'm pretty sure that suppressing dissenting opinion is common to both sides. --B (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist: To justify early closure, the content would have to be so grossly offensive that the evil of leaving it exposed to public viewing for four further days outweighed the evil of not subjecting it to a full discussion. Given that the point of view these two userboxes espouse, while not one I agree with, is a mainstream opinion in many societies, that cannot be said to be the case here. David^(Talk) 23:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist: It seemed to me that when deciding to delete, Xavexgoem ignored what had already been said and instead introduced new arguments as justification for deletion. These arguments would have contributed greatly to the discussion (it made me think again about what I'd written, for one), but did not represent consensus of the discussion as it stood. I therefore would say the topic should be relisted and the discussion resumed, taking Xavexgoem's points on board. Opera hat (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - Double standards are unacceptable, even if you disagree with the viewpoint. VX!^~~~ 00:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep No strong objection to a relist. Yes it was closed early. But no, there isn't any conceivable reason these should be deleted if userboxes of the opposite view are kept. And yes, like apparently everyone else here, I'm strongly in favor of gay marriage. But we aren't censored, and unless we get rid of all political userboxes, this one needs to stay. The statement clearly has the backing of the majority of the US and AFAIK the majority of the world. It that offends you, come join me in the People's Republic where such views are quite rare indeed. (Now if Michigan would just let us pass our own gay marriage law!) Hobit (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question did the nominator attempt to discuss this with the person who performed the deletion? Maybe I'm a stickler for process, but isn't this DRV premature?-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion further discussion would likely have yielded no new ideas; the arguments are pretty straight-forward and like the underlying real-world conflict no one is likely to have their mind changed in 5 days rather than a few. These are clearly divisive - and yes, WP does have contrary views, but similarly I'm a Republican/Democrat/Labourite/Torry are all fine, I'm a Nazi isn't. I'm for racial equality, fine; I'm a Foo supremecist, not. I'm anti-nuclear, ok; I'm in favor of nuking the world, not OK. I'd prefer that they all go as they add little to collaborative efforts, but alas that position is the minority view. However, offensive things ought to go: Yes, it's not mirror image, but that's just tough luck - if you want to push your divisive POV's there's always WP:MYSPACE.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cough. I'm certain a few people would mind you comparing a box that advocates Nazism to a box that advocates "no same-sex marriage". I wouldn't mind a userbox that says "nuke everything" - at least I'd know what kind of user the user is. But this is not MfD, part 2. This is looking at the technical aspects of the closure - and those are kinda problematic. MfD discussions run for 5 days to allow everyone to participate and weigh in. If you can recognize the that a complex discussion about a difficult topic is "done" and determine the outcome of this discussion without fail, after it ran only a day and a half, you are a better person than it. CharonX/talk 06:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah the strawman you erect. The only keep arguments have been it's unfair and not parallel - in the next few days which we're going through now, nothing new has come up other than "if we had a few more days..." You're having them, sir, but nothing is coming up. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The impression I was getting was that there was a subtext of those who felt oppressed by that userbox, and those who did not but failed to realize that the former indeed feel that way when they come across these userboxes. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you make that point in the discussion, then, instead of unilaterally charging ahead to delete? Opera hat (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. Deletion discussions shoud not be closed early when they are being actively discussed and the discussion is as close as seen here, unless there is some danger to Wikipedia in continuing them (not the case for this). Deletion discussions should not be closed with a rationale that properly belongs as a part of the debate, to be responded to by others, particularly when an administrator uses their privelege of effecting deletions to overrrule debate without participating in it. Deletion discussions should never be closed with a suggestion that one position in that debate arises from ignorance or deficieny ("The argument by other editors that it is neutral has not taken into account this impression [that some people really don't like these]"; I, for one, did take it into account in speaking as I did, and was not asked by the closer whether I had done so), period. In response to Carlossuarez above: Yes, expressing anti-nuclear sentiments is fine, and yes, saying "nuke everything" is not, but saying that you don't agree with anti-nuclear sentiments is fine, too, and not at all equivalent to desiring a nuclear exchange - a failure to make such distinctions is at the heart of what's wrong with the closure. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist I was under the impression that userboxes were allowed some latitude in their expression of POV. Certainly this speedy deletion did not reach consensus: 11 votes to Delete, 12 votes to Keep does not merit speedy deletion; the deletion request was carried out much too rashly. This same (or a very similar) userbox was previously up for deletion two years ago and was kept. If these userboxes representing a point of view supporting heterosexual marriage are not appropriate for WP, then perhaps others should also be removed, for example, Template:User Same Sex Married, and certainly this one which attempts to shame others of different points of view User:Jw21/deUBdomain/notnarrow alt. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist due to early closure which was unjustified. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• relist Early closing controversial matters are not good. I will now repeat my usual refrain about userbox fights: Why bother? They don't matter either way. Go edit the encyclopedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty."[1]

When editing possibly contentious articles such as California Proposition 8 (2008), I was under the impression that my POV should be declared openly (and encourage others to remind me when my edits are POV-driven). While I try to maintain an NPOV standpoint, I understand that my POV will eventually leak out in some action because I'm human. Thoughts? MrBell ^(talk) 16:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My personal test is, is the userbox informative or polemical? Compare and contrast: "This user opposes same-sex marriage" vs. "This user believes that marriage consists of a man and a woman". The former is informative and neutral, the latter is distinctly soapboxy. So, why not simply state the former, and then we can all get on wth whatever it was we came here for? Guy (Help!) 20:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ye-es... but if someone believed that marriage was only between a man and a woman, they mightn't want to use the term "same-sex marriage" at all - from their point of view, it would be an oxymoron. Or they could hold the belief that a marriage in church should be between a man and a woman, without opposing state recognition of civil marriages between members of the same sex. Or whatever. The two statements aren't saying the same thing. Opera hat (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't strike me as that different in tone. Furthermore, "same-sex marriage" is a term that is favored one side of this issue. Polemic would be "This user believes God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." JoshuaZ (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's all just semantics, but "This user believes marriage should consist of..." seems a little less pointy than a version without "should", if we are talking about rewordings...-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← This is essentially the reason I closed it; there is a middle ground here, like the one Guy suggests and the one I did in my closing statement. Consensus is leaning towards relist; if anyone believes that should be within my remit and prerogative, please say so and I will relist per this discussion. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist unreasonably early close of something which should have been left for the full time. Trying to close off discussions on topics like these with strong differences in view tends to not be very productive. There is no need to reargue the actual issue here, at least not now. DGG (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted and add in every single userbox that starts "This user believes that...". Pointless, often divisive, and you know what? I really couldn't give a **** about your beliefs as long as they don't colour your editing. Black Kite 09:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A voice of clarity above the din! Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah. sadly, since it was closed far too early, it does really have to be relisted, and no doubt it'll be kept, despite being the complete antithesis of something that assists a collegial editing environment. Mind you, it could almost be helpful, because it's almost as if editors displaying it on their userpages are saying "Hey look, I really feel the need to display my bigotries, so it's probably worth checking my contribs as well". Black Kite 15:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist for full discussion per DGG and Vxx. I do not understand these attempts to interfere with userpage content. This was not soapboxy. Just stating a view. For comparison, I express admiration in a userbox for a slain civil rights leader. Should it be removed because it might offend those who disagree with him or my views on civil rights? I think not. Is the objection to the userbox in question more weighty than would be an objection to the MLK userbox because the MLK one is more in conformance with PC? No. If anyone has a problem with an opinion in a user box, they need to not look at it. Or spend more time writing/citing/improving articles. There are real problems on Wikipedia, and this userbox is not one of them. Dlohcierekim 15:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist Cannot see the reasoning or grounds for closing the discussion early, let a discussion take the full period to allow full community participation. Davewild (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist, while I disagree strongly with the sentiment espoused by the userboxes in question, the procedure clearly was not followed correctly. Open it up to a full discussion, and hopefully we can dispose of these repulsive templates the proper way. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Relist – My userbox was neutrally written. See the opening statement by User:B above: these userboxes were nominated along with two grossly inflammatory ones that were in no way appropriate. They should have been considered separately from the beginning. I agree with this sentiment. I say Relist, but keep the inflammatory ones separate from my box. I’m willing to bet that the community consensus in a properly done MfD will also say Keep. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 19:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Jesus Christ, another Threshold-style close. Closing administrators are not allowed to reject the Community's reality and substitute their own; they're supposed to interpret the consensus and arguments for/against and determine whether the attempt passes or fails on those merits. Trout the closing admin as well. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 23:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - the stated purpose of userboxes is to allow for collaboration between users to create, maintain or improve Wikipedia articles. Since articles must comply with WP:NPOV, there is absolutely no collaborative value in userboxes that express one's opinion on same-sex marriage, either for or against. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so if a user feels compelled to announce his opposition or support of same-sex marriage, they are free to find one of any number of websites upon which to do it or start their own website or blog. Otto4711 (talk) 06:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Relist - There was no consensus to close 16x9 (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Willis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Willis should be deleted... This individual is a barely known back up singer and secondary supporting artist... There is no evidence that he is famous or his solo career releases or main performances are noteworthy... In fact, all articles I have found support my premise for deletion: http://www.queerty.com/gay-singer-chris-willis-has-soul-20080729/

http://www.woozyfly.com/theskinnydip

Never interviewed by billboard magazine, etc...

Its an open/shut case...

• comment- i added the references section and reflist template for the article. No opinion either way at this time.Umbralcorax (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close This is not the place for a second AFD. Renominate it at AFD, it is over 6 months since the last (poorly attended) AFD and no evidence of process irregularity at that AFD has been brought forward. There is nothing to stop anybody from renominating the article for deletion. Davewild (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Purdey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

I created the page for British rock group Samuel Purdey last week (which was then deleted). On the advice of a Wikipedia admin here, I recreated the article (in order to prevent further deletion while I worked on it) here at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rolluprob/Samuel_Purdey

I have recently consulted admin RHaworth - who deleted the original article - and he suggested that I should post this at deletion review. I hope this is ok. The article has changed considerably since its deletion. And so, I would like for it to be reviewed where it now resides (no risk of deletion) before I attempt to recreate the page proper.

Further support for the bands notability - currently at #13 in Japan's Kiss Fm Hit Chart. http://www.kiss-fm.co.jp/pc/hit/hit_index.php
Thank you (Rolluprob (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC))...and today they are now number 1 http://www.kiss-fm.co.jp/pc/hit/hit_index.php (Rolluprob (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment I don't see any new sourcing in the userspace article, indeed most of the article does not seem to be sourced to reliable sources. If you have reliable secondary sources for statements such as "These met with some favourable criticism by the British music press at the time" and "It became the 5th most played track on Tokyo radio stations during May 1999" then combined with that charting mentioned above I would probably be inclined to support recreation. Otherwise I have to say that it should be kept deleted for now as the sourcing issues from the AFD do not seem to have been resolved yet. Davewild (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Striking my comment as I am just not sure here anymore, perhaps someone could drop a neutral note on WT:MUSIC to get some more views on this from regulars there. Davewild (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hi, I've discovered this link regarding a Top 5 entry for the groups's single 'Lucky Radio' in June 1999 in Japan: http://sound.jp/tnsn/tokio100/1999/99_06.tokio.html
  And this is the Tokio Hot 100 (J-Wave) on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokio_Hot_100
  (Rolluprob (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• keep deleted for now Article looks quite well written, but sources don't meet WP:N and I can't find any that help. Sorry. Hobit (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems to meet WP:BAND#5 on the grounds of releasing two albums. If we can get backup sources for that, I'd be happy to restore. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The band are also features on 4 compilation albums - does this help WP:BAND#5 ? Thanks. (Rolluprob (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    • No. And sources for all of these claims (which should be reliable would be better than adding more claims. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, thanks. By the way, do I need 'sources' for above mentioned compilation albums? These are available via Amazon.com (and/or Amazon.co.uk) but I don't suppose I should create a link to these pages from the article page. Thanks. (Rolluprob (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
• The band are now featured on the homepage of Grey Dog's Records in Japan following the recent release of their album Musically Adrift (remastered): http://www.greydogsrecords.com/ (Rolluprob (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• The band is currently at #1 in Japan's Kiss Fm Hit Chart. http://www.kiss-fm.co.jp/pc/hit/hit_index.php
  (Rolluprob (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment I'd like to point out here that WP:BAND "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" #6 should apply as the band's lead singer and guitarist - Gavin Dodds - was previously a member of Jamiroquai, and subsequently a member of Spacemonkeyz. His name is on these two pages (previous member and member), and as they are on Wikipedia, they must therefore be 'notable'. (Rolluprob (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Boxxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Boxxy is the name given to a girl whose YouTube videos have become a viral phenomenon and internet meme, also causing great conflict on 4chan. The Boxxy phenomenon has been mentioned in The Guardian, an Australian journal, and two articles on a Dutch news site.

This looks decent and here she is described as the new lonelygirl15. All three previous versions of Boxxy were speedily deleted and the page was protected against creation so I am opening a discussion here at WP:DRV. With these reliable sources the Boxxy phenomenon clearly meets WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:BLP and so an article should be created as a notable meme and internet personality. Hospitality Flawless (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest a userspace version of an article be created first (e.g at User:Hospitality Flawless/Boxxy) and brought here to deletion review. The previous deleted versions were all very bad (with no useful content) and I endorse all 3 deletions made (though not the rationale for the first one). As a result I think it is best that we first see a userspace version before we consider allowing recreation. Davewild (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation based on the userspace version created which no longer meets any speedy criteria. If anyone disagrees that it meets the notability criteria then it can be nominated for AFD after it is recreated. Davewild (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with Davewild above. I'd like to see an actual userspace article written before i'd vote on whether or not an article is appropriate. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have created a draft article about Boxxy - please feel free to update this or amend it as you wish.--Hospitality Flawless (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the userspace article, i'm going to vote to unsalt and allow creation.Umbralcorax (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's probably better to not cite blogs (like dtgeeks and bannerblogs) or include information sourced only by blogs, but fundamentally we should allow recreation. — PyTom (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We must remember not to be luddites here. Wikipedia should not discriminate against things that are new, such as Boxxy.--Hospitality Flawless (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and unsalt Clearly the topic meets all policies. And while a well-written article would be nice, we certainly should have an article on her per sources provided. Ghe Guardian Blog is their main technology one from what I can tell. Not just a group of people randomly writing. Hobit (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted BLP1E and notability is not transient. This flash in the pan will be long forgotten next year - just like the house fire down the street which made the local news and papers. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability isn't temporary either. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And this phenomenon was certainly temporary, hence not notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation Article subject is topic of multiple reliable publications, which means she meets WP:GNG and the first criterion in several topic-specific notability criteria. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Much as I hate all this 4chan rubbish, this seems to meet inclusion criteria, so regrettably permit recreation. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Given all the above, and that the page clearly will not be speedily deleted, I went ahead and moved the userspace version to mainspace. It may be PRODed and/or AfDed as necessary. Hopsitality Flawless, this leaves a redirect at User:Hospitality Flawless/Boxxy. Leave me a message at my talk page or tag the page with {{db-u1}} if you don't want it anymore. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 17:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The article, since Lifebaka moved it, has been twice deleted under G10 (once by Dlohcierekim, once by NCurse), and twice restored (once by Dlohcierekim and once by me, as it was not negative and so did not meet G10). I am minded to take Lifebaka's moving the subpage to article space as DRV-endorsed overturning of the speedy deletion (or particularly the [create = sysop] disallowing further creation). Given there are, as Lifebaka notes, enough assertions of notability in the sourced and non-negative article to negate previous deletion rationales, I suggest we close this DRV now as "allow recreation" with no prejudice toward any further deletion considerations. seresin ( ¡? )  00:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted all the sources are from blogs so it can't be restored until a reliable source is used because of WP:BLP.--Otterathome (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn and AFDThe Guardian source is not a blog, though blog is in the URL. It is a newspaper article that others may comment on, but the source for the content is an article. It is not an attack, so BLP is not appropriate grounds for speedy deletion or for blanking the article. It asserts significance so speedy deletion is not appropriate. This needs to be sent back to AFD for a full discussion of its merits or demerits. Blogs cannot be dismissed out-of-hand, depending on the person writing the content-- they might be an expert or have credentials making them a RS. Again, this needs to be determined at AFD. Ottersathome is grossly misinterpreting BLP to delete as an attack page an article that needs its notability and verifiability determined at AFD. Dlohcierekim 01:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS seresin put it so much better than I. I speedy deleted the thing from the hip, because otters had blanked it when tagging it for G10. Had I seen it before deleting it, I would have declined and recommended AFD. It does not meet CSD criteria. Dlohcierekim 01:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As the article creator, I have updated the main Boxxy article with a new source and some improvement. For the moment, please do not blank it again as I do not wish to lose my work. For those who say WP:BLP1E applies, I personally do not consider this article to be a BLP as set out at that policy page as I have just read it. The article is more about the Boxxy meme than about the girl herself. The article I have written does nothing to violate BLP, it's all sourced, as everything on Wikipedia should be.--Hospitality Flawless (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Good point about the meme. {You might want to want to copy this in case this is deleted. You may need to find some place other than Wikipedia to put it.) Dlohcierekim 01:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, saved in notepad my version. By the way, there are new sources about Boxxy appearing every day it seems. The notability of Boxxy will just continue to grow.--Hospitality Flawless (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admins can give you a copy to work on if it is deleted. Also the guardian is a blog http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/jan/20/internet, it is listed under " News > Technology > Technology blog ". A meme is about a subject, this being a person so BLP still completely applies. As no non-blogs/reliable are used, it is blanked. Notability will continue to grow? Please read WP:CRYSTALBALL.--Otterathome (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She is notable enough already as other people have pointed out. Her further notability to back that up is likely only to continue to grow.--Hospitality Flawless (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't comply with WP:BLP yet (which prohibits unreliable sources from these kinds of articles), let alone notability.--Otterathome (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation The current article is adequately sourced and establishes notability. Note that the Guardian newspaper blog is a perfectly acceptable source as defined by wikipedia's verifiability policy (see footnote 5), and confirmed multiple times on WP:RSN: see this and this. Other blog sources may need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Abecedare (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry but the same rules don't apply on biographical articles.--Otterathome (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn The nomination lists more than enough sources. If there's any further issue it should go through AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 50 years old. When I source an article, I go to books and newspapers. They may be digitized, but they are still from print media. Those resources are unavailable for this. There are 400 Unique Google hits. No way I'm gonna sift them all. But whether or not there are RS among all these is a decision best made at AFD. Otter wants the article deleted because of a handful of adjectives that would not be missed were they removed. And the article is about the meme, not the person behind the meme. And even an unsourced articles about people do not need to be deleted per WP:BLP, and certainly not speedily. The key words here are preservation of information, due diligence in finding sources, deletion as the last resort, once an article has been determined to be beyond rescue. At worst, removal of all but minimal content about the person would still leave an article in which notability and verifiability could be debated. And, as I said, blogs cannot be discounted out of hand. Yes, some sources should be removed. Others can be found. Better sources with significant coverage, should anyone care to make the effort. Dlohcierekim 02:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation The page might be about an internet meme, but might I remind to the fact that other memes such as Rickrolling are plenty documented on wikipedia. Boxxy might still be a meme in evolution, but that does not make it less noteworthy. She might be "old" in a few weeks, or she could be here for quite a long time, the point is that in the short time she's been around she had a very major impact, even if she did not intended it that way. The article is indeed not about the person behind the movie simply because there IS nothing known about the person behind the movie. And quite honestly, she has nothing to do with it either, she never intended her movies to be used this way, but they are. The article is just about the fact that they are, how they are, and the impact and rammifications they are creating. The lack of "reliable" resources as stated above is hard to resolve, as most people only consider things like written press reliable resources and, be honest, how many real newspapers would create articles about Boxxy, or how many researches would go into the phenomenon?Jack Masamune (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Evidently notable - saw a large article about the topic myself in a newspaper recently. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you could provide a link, it would go a long way toward establishing notability. Dlohcierekim 15:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- I've noticed that the page seems to be deleted by someone. While I'm sure that they are acting in good faith, perhaps its best we let this DRV run its course before its deleted? Umbralcorax (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• there was an article in UK metro about her. link to the article, image to prove it was in printed form too. --90.178.180.22 (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Well the author has replaced all the instances of 4chan with EBAUMSWORLD, if only these 'reliable sources' would make up their minds about the facts..--Otterathome (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason why he replaced the name of the 4chan board with Ebaumsworld is because of Anonymous Rule#1 and Rule#2 that state that one must not talk about the actual source board where that came from in question. You can see that he replaced it by the asterisk next to the word, and the comment for the asterisk at the bottom. That being said, the correct board is mentioned in the newspaper article in the photo.Jack Masamune (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation. Evidence of reliable sources and news coverage is now clear. --Cyclopia (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Aside from the guardian source, I'm not seeing enough to build a biographical article about. Also, am I missing a deletion debate, or was this A7'd? We can probably wait a bit to see if some news organization will cover this in a deeper fashion (because the fun story was 4chan getting trolled, not the fact that someone has an obnoxious video)--other internet memes that we cover in independent articles are sourced pretty well and this shouldn't be an exception. Protonk (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This was never AFD'd but was speedy deleted three times as G1, A7 and G10 and then salted. In my opinion they were clearly correct speedies but bear no relation to the version being discussed here (though I disagree with using G1 (patent nonsense) on the first one). Davewild (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok. Then the way this discussion has progressed makes sense. Protonk (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation, as much as I think 4chan memes are pretty stupid, there seems to be enough material here in reliable sources to justify an article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment people keep saying there's enough reliable sources, yet I don't see any. The only usable one is the guardian, yet we can't use that as it's against WP:BLP.--Otterathome (talk) 08:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the only potentially contentious material is the description of her dancing (about four adjectives)-- which you are misinterpreting, and which can be rephrased. Also, we need to look beyond the sourcing currently in the article and see if more RS be found among the 100's of G hits. A matter for discussion at AFD. BLP via WP:CSD#G10 is not meant to be a short cut to deletion in articles that do not qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. Where contentious/controversial material-- negative and potentially defaming, not merely poorly sourced or unsourced-- can be removed and the article not be deleted, then the material needs to be removed and the rest of the article kept. Such is the case here. The rest of the deletion discussion needs to hinge around notability and reliable sourcing-- a matter for AFD. Dlohcierekim 15:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you are suggesting we have a biographical article sourced completely by blogs? So much for WP:BLP let alone notability then.--Otterathome (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm late to this discussion but having just had a look at the sources, the Guardian "blog" isn't really a blog nor is the Metro one in my opinion. I'd draw your attention to WP:BLP where it states that "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources". It seems to me that in both circumstances, the term blog is probably being used because it is fashionable. Just because these sources describe themselves as blogs, it doesn't mean we have to treat them as such. Adambro (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The metro isn't usable, not only does it appear they've used a blogspot as a reference, but the fact they've replaced 4chan with ebaumsworld due to comments left just shows how bad a source it is to use. So using the guardian blog as the only source is doesn't make this notable and a perfect violation of WP:1E. Due to the only one usable source, the only feasible option is to redirect to 4chan with a tiny mention by using the guardian as a source. If any more usable sources are uncovered, we can have another deletion review.--Otterathome (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Mostly agree with Otterathome, however instead of a redirect, I'd prefer a disambiguation page, because Boxxy is also the nickname of Shannon Boxx. Anyway, endorse the speedy deletes, allow recreation, and then I guess there will probably be a discussion at AfD. PhilKnight (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small point - I'd have Boxxy point straight to the internet meme girl with a link at the top to Shannon Boxx, since it's the main term describing the girl but only a nickname of the midfielder. FlyingToaster 05:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation Subject is absolutely notable - the Guardian article alone I think makes that clear. FlyingToaster 05:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation It's in THE GUARDIAN? It's on metro.co.uk?! Wow! How many non-notable persons/things are written about in such major publications? --TIB (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation I can't agree with FlyingToaster more. burnte (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]