Talk:Catherine Wayne/Archive 1

External Link
You shall not work. --SwissAirForceSoldier (talk) 11:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Boxxy (Internet phenomenon) → Boxxy — There are no other articles with the same title.--Karppinen (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. This new article could have been written over the existing redirect except that the redirect is protected. Station1 (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support (as article creator). Boxxy currently redirects to List of YouTube personalities, which has a line item for Boxxy pointing to this article.  The administrator who created and then protected the redirect after the old article was deleted did so without any discussion or process, and has not been editing for months.  I asked User:MZMcBride, the admin who closed the deletion discussion, if they would unprotect the redirect but so far no response.  So a consensus to move the article would require an administrator to carry out.  - Wikidemon (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * AfD here: Articles for deletion/Boxxy. This should, perhaps, be a deletion review, as this is essentially a recreated article.  Powers T 16:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * First edit summary states: "article created without reference to any prior version, based largely on sources that were not present at time of deletion". Station1 (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * After seeing the number of references, I think that article should have another chance. Snowman (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, she's for one gained enough fame for this article not to get speedily deleted (I think having your own article in The Guardian would be enough but she's gone further) and as far as that's concerned, there's no reason to have this article dabbed and needs to be moved as soon as it can. • GunMetal Angel  19:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Superfluous disambiguation per wp:precise. walk victor falktalk 13:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Needs work
This article needs to be completely redone. Grammar and style are terrible, and trivial facts are included while important ones are omitted. It also needs to be more clear about the fact that Svetlana and Boxxy are two of Catherine Wayne's characters and that the discussion between them was "for entertainment purposes only." I'll work on it when I get the chance, but I'm also doing some other wiki stuff at the moment. --SuperEditor (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Why does this article exist, and why is there a table of videos she has appeared in?
She is not significant enough to have her own Wikipedia page, and her individual videos are definitely not important enough to be chronicled. I feel like this is sexless netizens trying to feel close to a cute girl by making a page about her and including any minor detail they can to prolong the intimacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.124.190 (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice opinion, but the article passes notability as per the 17 sources that demonstrate her internet fame -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 14:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Policy is just a guide and should not supersede common sense. This is fast becoming a shining example of "wikigroaning" because it clearly has no encyclopedic value. Sources can be found on anything, that doesn't mean that every subject of every Guardian editorial deserves its own encyclopedia article. 96.252.169.227 (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well until she loses all of her worldwide fans + reliable sources, and her article starts to dramitacally fumble all together, you can expect it to be deleted, but until then...it's here to stay as it does pass notability as well as basic policies. That's common sense for you. If you think other wise, nominate it for deletion by all means. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 04:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the IP user -- not that Boxxy doesn't deserve a page, but that sources do not alone make a subject notable or encyclopedic. Notability is generally established through a mosaic of evidence. And evidence for notability (like superfluous sourcing) can be balanced out by evidence against notability. My opinion (MelbourneStar, opinions are valid here since, again, notability cannot be determined by a litmus test -- rather by piecing together evidence that the community can use to determine consensus) is that Boxxy is notable. However, articles should be proportionate to the notability of the subject matter. Excessive length or amounts of detail for a person of minor notability would warrant pruning. For example the "notes" column of the table is something that I would consider excessive detail for a person of Boxxy's notability. ask123 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

She'll be in a movie
http://www.facebook.com/catiexboxxy/posts/217159848322648 Check the data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.162.156.53 (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Dead external link
I just removed dead link to http://www.catiewayne.com/. The site comes up "This domain name expired on Dec 18 2011 05:20AM". Feel free to restore it if the page comes back. Alsee (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Dead external link update
The link to http://www.catiewayne.com/ should be reinstated because the domain name has been renewed and now will not expire until Dec 18 2012. 02:03, 07 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.81.133 (talk)

Notability:
Is Boxxy notable enough for her own article or should it be merged into another article? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Such a discussion was had in 2009 (see link above) and rejected.--Milowent • hasspoken 00:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. If her article was deleted, then why was it remade? She's received even less coverage after returning to youtube. Her inclusion in the List of YouTube personalities is perfectly fine and all that's really needed. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The subject passes general notability guidelines, with substantial articles about it in the Globe, Guardian, and CNET. We do have quite a few articles about online personalities and the phenomena around them, it's part of Wikipedia's coverage of Internet culture.  - Wikidemon (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * She has received additional media coverage since the article was deleted in early 2009. For example The Globe and Mail, and CNET articles used as sources for this article (refs #3 and #5 at this moment) where both written after the deletion discussion ended (1 Feb '09). Jiiimbooh (talk) 05:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, notability is scalar. If her notability has decreased, then that should be reflected in the article. Remove fancruft -- that stuff shouldn't even be there in the first place. Yes, Boxxy is notable, but there are some details in this article that are interesting only to a small group of deeply loyal fans. ask123 (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Still needs a lot of work
At the time being, this article hardly tells the reader anything useful, and what it tells, it does in odd places. The whole section named "history" starts in the middle of some flame war, when we first need to be introduced to the character and person and their claim to fame, which is somewhat done in the next section. Anyway, as is - regardless of notability issues - this hardly qualifies as an article at all. --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That's all there is. A camwhore posted some pictures. Some of 4chan wanted moar, some wanted less. The 433rd shitstorm of the day occurred. Bored news media still not quite sure what this "Internet" thing was, covered a non-event with a picture of an averagely-attractive girl and a sentence explaining that nobody should know or care who she was. That's it. There is nothing else. She didn't even kill herself 188.29.164.148 (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed, would you care to help? Please propose or make some edits to improve! - Wikidemon (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would, if I knew anything about here - the reason I stumbled across this article is that I wanted to find out about stuff after seeing her mentioned somewhere else. --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This article needs to be trimmed down a lot, there's a ton of stupid trivial nonsense in it. We don't need to document every single video she's made or talk about non-notable controversy surrounding them. -waywardhorizons (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Trim the videography section
The purpose of the videography section is to document the most important videos in which Catie Wayne appears. It is not meant to be a complete list of every single video that she has appeared in. The purpose of the notes section is not to say "Published on XYZ's channel" next to each video. I am deleting the irrelevant entries from the section. --Joshua Issac (talk) 11:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ; for actors and actresses who have appeared in multiple films, do we "trim" their filmography list down? Of course not. Take a page from Nigahiga - have we trimmed that list too? No. "irrelevant entries" based on what? All the videos listed seem quite relevant to the subject in question - who's notable for making those videos. -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 11:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The relevant videos are those for which she is notable. These are mentioned in reliable, third-party sources. The list in the article that you linked to should also be removed, unless third-party references in reliable sources can be found to justify its inclusion. Policy dictates that "articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources" (emphasis mine). --Joshua Issac (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That policy is referring to the general nature of the article, rather the specific parts of it, or in particular the video section. If there's going to be a videography, atleast either mention that it's an incomplete list; a few notable examples - or don't have the list, at all - since they are already explained in the preceding sections. -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 12:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The verifiability policy applies to all of the content in the article namespace. It has been stated in the Videography section that the list only contains a selection of videos in which Boxxy appears. But it probably would be better to remove the list altogether, as you suggested.  --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Article is based on verifiable content - those videos are allowed to be used because although YouTube isn't a reliable source - her account(s), primary source, are allowed per WP:ABOUTSELF. Secondly, I'm quite sure there are multiple videos in which the subject has appeared in, that are not mentioned in this list; although this list should then say its incomplete - that, there, is your "selection". That being said, If you believe that videography section as a whole, should be removed - I won't object. -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 06:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This makes no sense.
The following makes no sense. In 2010, Urlesque named Boxxy number 104 on its list of The 100 Most Iconic Internet Videos. Uhh, how can she be number 104 if the list only goes to 100? In fact, why does this girl even have a Wikipedia page? I think I'm going to nominate this article for deletion. It is just some girl who wants to be a actress. Aren't there millions of wanna be acctress' out there with YouTube videos? --98.87.89.184 (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm granted it doesn't make too much sense, and the source doesn't seem to clarify any further. To answer your question regarding the validity of an article > this would explain. -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 06:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. It was an honorable mention, so it was outside of the actual top 100.
 * 2. You can nominate the article for deletion, but I think it would (and that it should) close as "keep" considering the attention she's got in mainstream media. Jiiimbooh (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The reference explains why it is #104 out of 100: "This particular video is part of the 14 Forgotten Videos that we either purposely left off or forgot to add (our bad)", which links to the 14 forgotten videos link. This article easily passes the criteria listed at Notability (people) considering the coverage she has received in multiple reliable sources such as The Guardian, The Globe and Mail, Libération, etc.  Dreadstar  ☥   03:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 January 2013
Boxxy's channel as Catherine Wayne (herself) is at: http://www.youtube.com/user/ANewHopeee

198.84.181.238 (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done- Happysailor  (Talk) 20:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Suicide rumor - FALSE!
This rumor was started as a 4 Chan raid. The thread is currently active (thread: b/res/458769228) (Note that 4-chan often features NSFW content. You have been warned.) No direct link because I can't post a link to 4 Chan on Wikipedia even on the talk page.

I thought people might come to her article looking for information about this. Better to mention it on the talk page than not at all.

(There are of course no reliable sources talking the supposed suicide, because it didn't happen. Maybe some source will talk about the raid eventually and then it could possibly be mentioned in the article, but currently, no.) Jiiimbooh (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Catherine Wayne, not Boxxy
What this article needs, in my opinion, is a complete reboot, as an article on Catherine Wayne, and the Boxxy article should be cut down to a brief cross reference. A biographical article about a fictional character is not to be taken seriously, and being precise about the endless confusion between the two is an important reason why an article about Catie Wayne would be useful. The Boxxy phenomenon, which led to her being stalked, doxxed, and harassed in real life, is mostly past. Catie Wayne make 39 videos in 2013, more than in any other year, but she only made two videos as the character of "Boxxy". While the Boxxybabee channel has more total views, anewhopeee is currently getting more views per month.

It's easy to underestimate Catie Wayne from a distance, but she's a genuine talent who will continue to command a loyal fan base. Catie's fans are sort of crazy, and in my opinion one important reason for this is because when she made a couple of videos for her friends and left them for the web to discover, she stumbled upon what's new and compelling about the medium. Most YouTubers try to recreate the 60 year old medium of TV, but she simply talked to the viewer. One person in a room BY HERSELF talking to another person, who watches on a one person screen is intimate and powerful, and it never existed before YouTube.

I know there are more popular youtubers in terms of traffic. Both her channels total just over 49 million views.

I'm new here, so don't bite me, but Google reports 747,000 items for Boxxy, and 368,000 items for Catie Wayne. For the sake of this arguement, let's suppose that's a lot, but virtually none of these items are "reliable". Things that happen on the internet are ignored by more traditional media, and according to the criteria given, the internet cannot reliably document itself, but things really do happen on the internet.

This isn't just about a cute girl who wants to be an actress. This is the the story of an underaged girl who innocently made a couple of videos for her friends, and wound up being terrorized by a good portion of 4chan when she unknowingly became a propaganda weapon in a conflict between two groups. They publically threatenend her; they photoshopped her into hate porn, some of it quite violent, they released her home address, and started showing up at her house. Since there had never been a youtube or a 4chan before, it may have been completely unprecendented,and therefore of historical significance, but it's never been very well documentened, and I think it ought to be, so that the web treats underaged girls better in the future. There needs to be standards for using web sources, when web sources are all there is.

Couldgoforsomesushi (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia. The sources refer to her as Boxxy, and that is the persona she is notable as, so the Wikipedia article also covers "Boxxy", rather than "Catie". The standards for using web sources can be found at Identifying reliable sources. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Her website is CatieWayne.com. She appears as Catie Wayne in videos for the Fine Brothers and animalist. She has an IMDB page as Catherine Wayne. She appears as Catie on the anewhoppeee channel with 20 million views.

The problem here may be that during Boxxy's brief period as a 4chan phenomena, her real name was not publically known. Sources from that period are, on this essential point, obsolete.

Couldgoforsomesushi (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. Can you provide any WP:RS for all this? AFAIK IMDB is not considered reliable both because it's largely user generated, and it's a tertiary source. If it turns out that the weight of the sources describe her as Catherine Wayne (perhaps giving some added weight to the more current and comprehensive ones), you're right that the article would need refocus and renaming to her name. We're sort of in a grey area. Some people who adopt stage names or stage characters do get covered under their adopted name (e.g. Madonna (entertainer), Mark Twain, Max Headroom (character)). Others are covered under their real name once it's discovered (e.g. Ted Kaczynski). - Wikidemon (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)aaaaa

Let me draw a picture for you. Catie Wayne releases a video under her name every Friday to a crazy devoted fanbase that's smaller than Boxxy's.  Most videos eventually get views in six figures. She appears as Catie Wayne on the Animalist channel several times a week in videos that (so far) are getting views in the tens of thousands. She occasionally appears as Catie Wayne in YOUTUBERS REACT videos for the Fine Brothers that get views in the millions. And she releases videos on her Boxxy channel maybe 2 or 3 times a year, and they get views in millions.

The documentation for this is all over youtube, and most of it already linked to. If the videos and sites themselves can be taken as documentation, I would certainly say that the weight of the sources describe her as Catie Wayne. I'd point out that the present article repeatedly refers to her by her last name. The "official website" in the external links is Catie Wayne.

For whatever it's worth, I think a Catie Wayne listing, with a cross-reference from Boxxy would be most helpful to people who want to find out who she is, and what she's been doing. It's more fact-based. Boxxy is her name on 4chan. Catie is her name. Couldgoforsomesushi (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

B.O.OXY.
How does Boxxy, essentially a "show your tits" 5-minute wonder, get her own Wikipedia page, and yet Chris-Chan, with an 1,800-page Wiki, and HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Youtube views, isn't allowed one? Is it the autism? Chris's unattractiveness? JERKOPS? Anyone, justify this page's existence and Chris-Chan's banning, as they relate to each other.

188.29.164.148 (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Catie Wayne has over FIFTY MILLION youtube views between 2009 and 2014 and several fan sites. The Boxxy character continues to have a following after 6 years.  The most recent Boxxy video was released January 9, 2014.Couldgoforsomesushi (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Chris's hundreds of thousands of views are per video. Not all of them, but many. I've no idea how many views he has altogether, and since many of his videos have been deleted then re-uploaded, it makes an accurate count impossible. Certainly, though, it is of the same magnitude. And Chris is actually entertaining. Only recently he burned down his house for the enjoyment of his fans. Both of these characters are far more famous than some others with Wikipedia pages. Why can't he have a page here? 188.29.165.158 (talk) 10:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of indenting your comments so the discussion would be easier to follow.
 * Boxxy gets to have her own page because she has received some attention from mainstream media. See the references at the end of the article. As for Chris, I don't know enough about him to really have an opinion about whether or not he should have an article on Wikipedia. If an article was deleted I'm assuming lack of coverage was the problem. Try to find some sources that Wikipedia considers reliable.
 * About the view count, I'll add that Boxxy's account was disabled for some time, and I believe her original uploads were inaccessible during that period, so the view count problem exist for Boxxy as well. Either way, an internet celebrity doesn't get to have their own article based on number of views alone. /Jiiimbooh » TALK – CONTRIBS 14:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I wanted to add something to this conversation. Internet celebrities like this should not be granted their own wikipedia pages.  It's things like that that really degrades the quality of the service.  Not to mention when this article was first brought up, they had reasons of mass media attention, and fame.  So what about someone who dies and makes national attention, such as a brutal car accident (lately that happens), does this justify a Wikipedia page for them?  Their fame as died down and this article has no justifiable purpose of being on this site.  I am new to actually posting on Wikipedia, but I felt it was necessary to say something, as I really care about the quality this website provides to us.  This article should be either deleted or moved to a more appropriate area such as a section of another article.Y2kbadbug (talk) 09:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Guardian Blog Removed
As per the afd, I removed all mentions of the Guardian Blog, as it is ultimately just a blog and was not subject to editorial control, and ultimately was self published source. Tutelary (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've re-added. Per WP:RS news blogs are considered reliable sources. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , Normally, yes they are. However, see WP:BLPSPS, which states to never use a self published source, even if it's written by a professional, as a source for a BLP. Tutelary (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What about this makes it any different than any other newspaper blog? The tech columnist is the author; the newspaper is the publisher. The piece is cited three times in the article. Which contentious claims in the article, if any, is the article cited for that it does not reliably support? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It does not matter. It is a blog, and is ultimately one person's opinion and was not subject to The Guardian's editorial control or policy. It's not a reliable source. That's my case and point. This was already established in the old afd. Tutelary (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, newspaper blogs are reliable sources per WP:RS, and pass BLP as such. I believe this is a well-established policy matter. I don't think anyone but you was arguing otherwise at AfD, but that's not the sort of policy question that can be decided there. If you have some questions about that, my suggestion would be to pose the question before WP:BLP/N or WP:RS/N. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As you cite WP:RS, please see WP:USERG. Self-published information should never be used as a source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. I am not referring to my nomination, but the other one. Tutelary (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Tutelary, in the most recent AfD, the only editor talking about this source was you, so I don't consider that to be a compelling argument for its removal. Otherwise, way back in 2009 opinion was so divided over whether The Guardian story was reliable that it gained a mention on the WP:LAME page. PhilKnight (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

ELMINOFFICIAL
I understand there is some bad blood between me and another editor, which is given the profanity in the edit summary. I've forgiven that and that's not what this is about. I'd just like to request that the external links be reduced to only one, the official website. The guiding policy here is WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. The official site links all the other links, so it's technically redundant to list all of them. Thoughts? Tutelary (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed them per WP:BOLD and am waiting for any conflicts -> discussion to ensue. More than willing to discuss. Tutelary (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That looks appropriate to me. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Page name
User:Harizotoh9 has boldly moved it (and created a copyright violation which needs to be deleted) on the talk page and of the article to Boxxy. I have contested such a page move request and he should take it to requested moves instead. Tutelary (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)