Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junlper (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Void‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Irredeemably tainted by all the meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry/spa voting Spartaz Humbug! 05:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Junlper
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails notability guidelines for a person. The goblin mode stuff especially smacks of WP:1E, with the other hoaxes and twitter shenanigans mostly being flashes in the pan that aren't indicative of WP:SUSTAINED, and thus don't exactly bolster the subject's notability for involvement. A possible merge to Goblin mode may be in order, but I don't think there's much in the page as it stands that would need to be put there. (Please, keep out of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, as apparently this user's reputation on twitter is sometimes contentious) Paragon Deku (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. notable individual. being posted on depthsofwikipedia is not an excuse that holds up for filing an AfD. —darling (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would you assume that has anything to do with the AfD listing? Paragon Deku (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not think depthsofwiki had anything to do with this, respectfuly Qwertyuiopfg (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Wisconsin.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * leaning keep - the refs are still a bit messy, but there's two extensive direct interviews, two shorters articles actually about the subject and her ban from Twitter rated an article in itself. That's a sign of interest over time in RSes for multiple things - David Gerard (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * also I think notability will only go up from here. Junlper's back on Twitter and it's not like Junlper is gonna stop being Junlper - David Gerard (talk) 11:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - the best you could argue for is a merge to Goblin mode. This person lacks sustained notability. They are best known for a Twitter profile that doesn't exist anymore. A couple of interviews/articles is too low of a bar for having a Wikipedia page. - Jingle38 (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's definitely not BLP1E as there are three or four things here: Goblin mode, the dick vein stuff, the "hidden headlines" stuff and the multiple chaotic Twitter suspensions/unsuspensions. Individually, each of these things is of low to borderline notability but, taken together, this shows repeated coverage over a period of time which I think is just about enough to count as sustained coverage. Back in December 2022 she got interviewed in depth by Buzzfeed News so this is not just a flash in the pan based on this last week's online drama. I am finding a large amount of trivial coverage and passing mentions too, particularly if you search "Juniper, twitter" and well as "Junlper". It's hard to find the more in-depth coverage among that but here is Techdirt covering her as major part of the "hidden headlines" story, with coverage of the resulting Twitter suspensions too. That's some more non-trivial coverage that could be added. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not every niche internet microcelebrity warrants an article. That fact that she got banned on the one platform she's active on and not a single news reported on it speaks to her lack of notability. Funktasticdog (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * there were multiple articles about the suspension Qwertyuiopfg (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree that there was no reporting, but it seems more to be focused on Musk and the platform than Juniper herself Paragon Deku (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I managed to find one article on her suspension, but it focuses more on Elon Musk, TheMessenger
 * Still, let me amend my point and say: "That fact that she got banned on the one platform she's active on and it's received little significant coverage speaks to her lack of notability" Funktasticdog (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have links to those? AaronY (talk) 09:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment for closer this is this accounts first edit in 6+ months, and its 9th overall edit. Googleguy007 (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this relevant? You can see from my other edits that I haven't made any disruptive edits, and this account has been active for 6+ years. I only edit when I feel it is necessary. Funktasticdog (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of sustained notability as noted above Sub31k (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I don't think that there isn't sustained notability/BLP1E. She was the subject of pieces across 2022 and 2023, of multiple events. The coverage isn't enough for NBIO imo, but it's enough that I wouldn't consider it. SWinxy (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Complete lack of any kind of notability, at least when held up to standards set by other instances of someone not getting an article. Gunther Fehlinger and Chris-Chan lack articles while being infinitely more notable in just about every imaginable metric. The subject of this article is most notable for creating a meme. At best, a footnote on the article for Goblin mode. Collorizador (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Continuing notability seems very unlikely. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable. They're a semi-popular Twitter troll who had a couple of viral tweets, now their account is gone there is no reason to believe they will maintain a degree of notability. Important to note that this person's presence on Wikipedia is being amplified by a single account, Personisinsterest, who created their account and instantly started to write articles about them and edit other articles to include information about them. Horarum (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In their defense, it was accepted at WP:AFC. At that point, adding links to a new article you just created to related articles is pretty standard practice. Creating your first account, writing a new article, submitting it to AFC, and adding links to related articles once its accepted is not a policy violation yet. Although I'll grant it does look like the beginnings of a WP:SPA. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that it is a policy violation for a new account to create articles, it is just a bit suspicious and does appear to be a WP:SPA / WP:SOCK. Horarum (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that making an account for a single purpose was against the rules, but I guess ill edit som other stuff then Personisinsterest (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Welcome to Wikipedia. —  Scott  •  talk  10:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm leaning keep. The Buzzfeed News and Rolling Stone interview articles are pretty good indication of notability and are for two distinct events (ruling out WP:1E in my opinion). That plus coining a word of the year and getting a lot of interviews/coverage about misinformation and satire in the digital age has me thinking she just meets GNG.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Getting a few interviews doesn't make one notable enough in my view. Declan Newton (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a stupid reasoning, it is more evidence than you have ever left behind of existing. 65.94.71.152 (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the former.
 * Lastly, I am not arguing about my own notoriety(or lack thereof). Declan Newton (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG is looking for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That would be articles like the Buzzfeed News and Rolling Stone articles. They're full length pieces on the person (significant coverage) in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete, there's obvious notability issues with very minimal coverage, and impact on offline events is low (compare to another shitposter, Dril who has significantly more followers, has published books, and still was subject to debates about notability). No reason to keep, sorry. GreenTetrahedron (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Without restating the points already made, I agree with the reasons stated above re: interviews, there being multiple events, and clearly meeting GNG. Additionally, there are plenty of examples in Category:Twitter accounts that are comparable to Junlper in terms of notability. Trevor Rainbolt, Da share z0ne, PissPigGrandad, and WeRateDogs come to mind. Slinkyo (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Many of those users are known for their offline and off Twitter activities. PissPigGrandad in particular has media attention and notability for fighting in Syria and working to unionize Anchor Brewing. I don’t think they’re really comparable. Paragon Deku (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete lack of sustained notability as mentioned and without the Twitter account the user will fade into obscurity even worse. AaronY (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per David Gerard. Sure, it's an edge case and I wouldn't begrudge a Delete close, but the references at the minute just pass GNG in my view, and a pass is a pass. Given the sources are not just for "one event", BLP1E isn't a valid deletion rationale. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 20:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. As others have said, lack of sustained notability. They're not exactly notable enough outside of the twitter platform, and every niche microcelebrity doesn't warrant an entire Wikipedia article. As others said, I believe a footnote in the Goblin mode article at the most is warranted. LunarxShadows (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC) — LunarxShadows (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment this is this accounts first ever edit Googleguy007 (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep if fucking LindyMan gets an Article, I see no reason as to why Junlper shouldn't. Death Editor 2 (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don’t think he should really have one either. Might want to open an AfD on that one if you think it’s an issue. Paragon Deku (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * He is at the very least a published author and has made impact outside of his little circle on twitter/x, topic of discussion is clearly a vanity article. Pinchofhope (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think being a published author makes one automatically notable for a wikipedia article. Death Editor 2 (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The point is the person was making a comparison that fails. Declan Newton (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * At least he publishes... well something offline. Declan Newton (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * wp:otherstuffexists Personisinsterest (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete, not notable, no offline impact. Pinchofhope (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Offline impact is not the criterion for keeping/deleting. 2600:6C52:7A00:AC0:CDBC:D9AA:B3CA:9F8C (talk) 05:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly, some people seem to believe that due to her notability being thanks to internet culture it makes her somehow inherently less notable. If juniper was some D-list celebrity with a small tv-show who occasionally got reported on for starting huge trends or jokes, then very publicly (with reporting on it) got said show cancelled for criticizing the network, we wouldnt even be having this conversation. Googleguy007 (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete 178.39.53.199 (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * definitely lol 2A02:C7C:AD28:7C00:984A:7153:55BF:778C (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Someone earlier said that the article was accepted on WP:AFC, so I doubt it.
 * RM-Steele (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment for closer  this is not an argument, and this is the IPs second edit. Googleguy007 (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also important to note the clearly intentional misgendering, which points at this simply being a troll/person who dislikes the subject. Googleguy007 (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think they are "trolls". Declan Newton (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * could you please point out how intentionally misgendering a subject isn’t trolling? Googleguy007 (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I reject that.
 * Most online users do not get online articles. It's acceptable to guess someone would write an article about themselves. Declan Newton (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * contrary to this, we have quite a few articles on online users (see Category:Twitter accounts, Category:Internet trolls, and probably more categories I've yet to link here). —darling (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, once they have passed a benchmark of notoriety.
 * Junlper has not. Not even close. Declan Newton (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * the article was accepted through AfC and contains enough sources that mention Junlper. I'm quite fairly sure the "benchmark of notoriety" has clearly been passed. —darling (talk) 22:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it was mistake that it got through.
 * No it has not been passed. None of the articles written about Junlper, as seen in references, are about anything notable in of themselves. Just some viral twitter jokes. Declan Newton (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please, enlighten me as to how “the [girl] probably wrote it [herself]”, with no additional backing or context, is an actual argument, especially given the blatant cruelty in intentionally misgendering. Googleguy007 (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Weakly leaning towards keep as well. There's probablby a billion and one articles with more notability that aren't present, and a billion and one articles that have no notability as well, so I personally don't think comparing articles will get us far.
 * For 1E, it's really about whether you think the vein hoax or her suspension is notable enough. I can't exactly be objective on this, but I remember the vein hoax well enough that I'd give it the pass.
 * Ultimately, I wouldn't feel it a loss if this article goes, but if there's no outstanding point from either camp, I think it would be better to keep an non-notable article than delete a notable one.
 * RM-Steele (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment noticing that several new accounts along with a couple of several year old almost-completely inactive accounts have randomly decided to appear at this AfD. I assume it's because of the depths tweet but I feel like a tiny bit of meatpuppetry may be occuring here. —darling (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. I tried to set up this AfD explicitly condoning “I don’t like it” arguments to try to deter this sort of behavior given recent attention. Hopefully it remains manageable. Paragon Deku (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete No real notoriety. Only a handful of viral tweets. As for others pointing out other internet celebs got pages, those people have built their brand across multiple platforms and simply put, had more fame than Junlper.
 * Lastly, there are far more "Twitter users" with more fame and followers that have more followers and routinely get more likes, such as "kiracantmizz", and they don't have wikipedia articles. Declan Newton (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * see WP:OTHERSTUFF. —darling (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Still in isolation, this person is not notable enough. Declan Newton (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That is an essay, right? Not a guideline? No offense but it's always annoying when people cite essays in debates that should be about guidelines. AaronY (talk) 10:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note None of these points actually address notability (see the articles and interviews about the user), but rather how famous they are online. Googleguy007 (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A couple interviews do not warrant classifying Junlper as notable enough for a page.
 * Lastly, online fame as an internet celebrity is your notoriety. Declan Newton (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete 68.207.220.31 (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment for closer  This ips only previous edits were vandalizing a sockpuppeteers LTA page to proclaim their innocence. Googleguy007 (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Not relevant enough of a personality to have a whole Wikipedia article, "JunIper" is at max a NiMCel with no impact out of Twitter. Henrique Schuh (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify? Personisinsterest (talk) 00:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment for closer this is this accounts second ever edit. Googleguy007 (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I think this page should be protected. While I welcome discussion about the article, there are too many IPs and accounts created now just to oppose this. They likely are from Twitter and don't like Juniper. I'd also like to say that many Delete comments, while there are some that provide actual arguments, are overwhelmingly just saying to delete with either a very short "no notability" or no context whatsoever. Personisinsterest (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I corroborate with the previously discussed deletion notoriety points, furthermore as a frequent user of twitter, I must say there are many other accounts that are very similar to this person, and a potential merge into a future page of "Twitter Shitposters" is the right move if information about this person must be preserved. When you strip away the 2 interviews there Isn't anything noteworthy here. There's Mr. Beast, a noteworthy figure, just responding to this person because they were reciprocating misinformation. This is frankly unremarkable and Mr. Beast would have responded to this if anyone said what this person said (provided it gained enough traction for him to see it). The fact that this brief >4 sentence interaction takes up a significant portion of the article Is a big red flag that this doesn't meet noteworthy requirements. I think the fact that one of the main accomplishments of this person being "Popularized Goblin Mode", (a minor internet meme) fails to live up to notability standards for two key reasons; Popularization is a frankly immeasurable effect that is more of a collective effort than a single person's actions, & popularization is inherently an unnoteworthy phenomenon to incur historically.  Important to note individual also did not create the snickers "Dick Vein" meme. This is a recurring viral joke that's been around since 2009 that was not even originally popularized by them. It could be debated they ultimately played no significant role in the resurgence of the meme, as it would happen anyway, as recurring memes do. Importantly with both of these, the concept of an internet meme is inherently rooted in how the larger internet acts and communicates. Giving someone "Credit for popularization" of this kind of thing is almost dishonest in this regard. It was the people who chose, not this person. Suspension from twitter is also extremely common, and the cause for which was entirely warranted under twitter's rules & guidelines. This again fails to meet a status of notability. After that, all that's left is their personal life, which is a measly 3 short sentences. This also does not meet notability requirements. Reminder to all to avoid discussion about the existence of other similar articles.
 * Onearenio (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC) — Onearenio (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I respect that you actually wrote something here. I have to say though, goblin mode was made word of the year and other notable things have happened surrounding that. And the Snickers dick vein joke was credited more to her because of the fabricated article of Tucker Carlson saying it had been removed and the ensuing right wing moral panic. her repopularizing the term was partly notable, but its the context around it that made it notable. the notability of her interactions with mrbeast are debatable, but they have been picked up in articles from reliable sources. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment for closer skimming the passage it seems like decent reasoning (or, at least, reasoning which has been properly enunciated), but I have to note that this is this accounts only edit. Googleguy007 (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Literally nothing noteworthy about this person Etsaloto (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not an argument. You would have to explain why the things in the article aren't noteworthy. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I just wanted to take some time to let you know that this is not a vote and just saying something should be deleted due to notability means nothing, with that in mind, you may want to elaborate on your reasoning. Googleguy007 (talk) 03:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Admittedly, Roxy is only aware of this article's existence because of Twitter. Based on the interview sources, she seems to meet WP:GNG. In the event of a Delete result, and Goblin mode should link to each other noting their shared creator. As others have already pointed out, deletion arguments based on (1) the existence of more famous online celebrities, (2) "offline impact", and (3) her account's being suspended, don't seem to be policy-based. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 00:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I've already voiced my opinion but it seems like there is a strong consensus that this page shouldn't exist. Just because a person has online fans doesn't mean they deserve a Wikipedia page. I haven't seen much defense of this article outside of the subject's fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jingle38 (talk • contribs) strike duplicate vote


 * Delete Keep It's better to simply relegate mentions of her to the Goblin Mode article and the Snickers article respectively. Apart from those things, she isn't notable for much else, and she doesn't have much of a presence within credible media outlets outside of the aforementioned memes. At the end of the day, most people will likely only remember her for those two events, no point in having an article with very little to go off in terms of detailing her personal life. After giving it some more thought, I retract my previous statement. After looking through Category: Twitter accounts, I now understand that "microcelebrities" with relatively little coverage don't necessarily warrant deletion. My bad. Subro77 (talk) 03:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * comment: This AfD is getting a lot of participation and I'm uncomfortable with the number of people arguing to delete because they feel like the subject isn't notable/doesn't deserve an article. WP:BLP2E is not a policy and the article subject here as gotten significant media attention for multiple things, to the extent that just covering her at the article on "goblin mode", or at the article on Snickers, or at the article regarding Twitter suspensions, would be a very sub-optimal way of doing things. There's clearly a decent amount of relevant information that can be reliably-sourced about her, and that's ultimately much of what notability guidelines are there to determine: whether we can write a decent, useful page on someone. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 02:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that people are getting off topic, but beyond a couple memes, this article provides practically nothing. It tells me that she's a food inspector and got a few listicles and puff pieces done about her when the memes were hot off the fryer. None of this is particularly informative and wouldn't be more at home in other pages.
 * Additionally, although not grounds for deletion in and of itself, the extremely rabid response from fans and detractors indicates this article will probably function has a hotspot for vandalism and a lightning rod for disruption and harassment of the individual in question. We have to weigh whether or not that's worth letting the article past the gate when, as it stands, it's not really providing much information that couldn't be explained elsewhere. Paragon Deku (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call any of the articles here "puff pieces" as they're not overly promotional. Agree that the level of media coverage as exists in the article is borderline, but when someone has been significantly involved in multiple events that merit mention, creating one article on them is preferable to having that content scattered around the site.
 * I don't see the response being an argument in favor of deletion either; we do not delete articles because they attract controversy, and any sort of precedent towards doing that would be a very bad one to set. I doubt the existence of this article would lead to much harassment of the subject, either, though obviously if she requested deletion that would change the calculus here. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 02:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We absolutely do omit articles for certain internet celebrities when including them would cause more harm than good. A rather extreme example, but this is especially why there will probably never be an article for Christine Chandler. I agree this is not nearly as extreme of a case. We will just have to wait and see, but I think the AfD may need to be retracted and redone at a later date if the disruption continues. Paragon Deku (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We have done this for exactly one internet celebrity, as you've mentioned, and that should not be cited as precedent in any case that is not extremely similar (and this one certainly is not). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 02:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Just want to clarify She is getting harassed and has requested deletion Paragon Deku (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We have a range of tools for dealing with articles which are vandal magnets. Semi-protection is the main one and, of course, persistent vandals get blocked. We have many even more tempting lightning rods for idiocy than this one. I'm sure that this will attract some disruptive activity but I doubt it will be anything we can't cope with. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Completely irrelevant user outside of weird irrelevant Twitter spaces. No real impact on the world, some pseudonymous Twitter leftist normieposter has no reason to have a Wikipedia page.Smefs (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment this seems like more of a personal attack on the woman who runs the account, not proper AFD reasoning, depending on how strongly you feel about this you may want to expand upon your reasoning in a reply (I would also reccomend reading some policies, guidelines, and essays on notability, as that seems to be your main issue with the article). Googleguy007 (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I didn't mean to come across that way. I was just attempting to communicate that I do not see the relevance of "Juniper" or other shitposters who inhabit a similar space, as I do not think they've have a meaningful impact or any non-temporary notability WP:SUSTAINED Smefs (talk) 05:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification, while I disagree on notability (I believe their media coverage has greatly outpaced that of many shitposters of a similar vain) I admire that you elaborated on your argument and find your reasoning sound. Googleguy007 (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems to pass GNG to me, even if not by a large margin. Goblin mode and the Snickers Dick Vein hoax are both things that I was aware of and heard about outside of twitter or her account.
 * Explodingcreepsr (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Personally this feels like this shouldn't be its own article, but it definitely meets notability guidelines.  Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖  03:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong delete This person is not notable and someone responsible for a few memes and posting is a prime example of “what Wikipedia is not”Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also take a *Merge to Goblin Mode Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The person has received coverage from multiple mainstream RS, why should the fact that the coverage was the result of twitter invalidate that? Googleguy007 (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article, and the sourced articles, don't offer any additional substantive information about the person. The only addition regarding Junlper is that she is a food inspector and that they were banned from Twitter. Many of the sourced articles are only about the events that happened and do not mention her or mention her only in passing. Spinwin2 (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong delete It feels like a double standard. Wikipedia doesn't have personal articles on people who have made far more of an impact on online culture. Off the top of my head, Ben Schulz, Gary Brolsma, and Jason Steele all are just mentioned in the articles of the things they created. If this stays, there's a legitimate argument for making a Chris Chan article, as they've arguably had even more mainstream news attention and memes surrounding them.76.77.227.183 (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST TheRealOj32 (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note this is this IPs 13th ever edit. Googleguy007 (talk) 10:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we should discuss on the quality of the argument and not the somewhat-lasting multi-edit history of an account. Sirguh (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:ATTP. You will find most of my edit history is within the realms of AfDs. TheRealOj32 (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a small point of clarification: I believe Googleguy007 was speaking to 76.77.227.183's history, not yours! Reil (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah good catch, my mistake on that part :) TheRealOj32 (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - It seems evident that this page is being targetted by people who don't like the subject. For fairness, I suggest no action is taken until it dies down. 203.211.79.215 (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure what to !vote yet, but personally, I would think twice before !voting to delete on notability grounds an article that has over 20 sources. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 04:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * About 2/3rds of those sources either don't mention Junlper or only mention her in passing. They are articles about either the dick vein viral post, or goblin mode fake headline. Two or three focus on Junlper but they are in a Q/A format and still predominately ask her about the viral posts that already have their own article and not her as a person. Spinwin2 (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Sontails1234 (talk 5:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Close discussion and reopen at a later date. - While I am personally in favor of deletion. I feel there have been far too many people here who seem to be working on their own personal dislike or like of the subject in question then any serious editorial process at hand. The "Depth of Wikipedia" post almost surely does not help matters here. The behavior of some users here has been so blatantly partisan about the subject of the article that it has effectively made any reliable discussion impossible as of now. Planetberaure (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Honestly, she just doesn't meet notability guidelines; she is a random Twitter user with ~250k followers; if every one of those had a page, we would an incredible amount of pages for Twitter users.
 * Comment - To be fair, the English Wikipedia already has 6,727,746 articles as of October 12th, 2023 and even on the high end of my estimates that would roughly total out to like 5000 new articles for twitter users with that amount of followers (not counting people already famous with a large amount of Twitter followers.) Rorr404 🗣️ ✍️ 🖼️ 🌐 17:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This argument seems to fall flat, her page is due to her coverage in the media, not the simple semi-popularity of her twitter account. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - while notability isn't an issue here, it's the sustained part that's the problem (only received coverage a few times in 2022 and 2023). MiasmaEternal  ☎  07:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTTEMPORARY Personisinsterest (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:SUSTAINED - Tabloid-esque coverage of viral tweets a few times over a 24 month period does not constitute notability Horarum (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Time range (of which two years is actually relatively long) doesnt factor into SUSTAINED, and Juniper has been covered for a variety (three which I am aware of) things. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - There are a lot of people who go viral and get one or two press interviews (especially through BuzzFeed) but don't meet notability guidelines for sustained coverage. I support a merge for Goblin mode though. HoldOnMagnolia (talk) 07:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - Lack of notoriety, accurately exemplified by the example above. Feels promotional, and also unfair considering how plenty of articles about arguably historically relevant people or other subjects are far less detailed. If anything, a mention in the Goblin mode article is enough. Anuchikibrikiivdamke (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per David Gerard - feels like a lot of the delete arguments boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, or both. WindTempos (talk • contribs) 11:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - Arguments for delete say subject is not notable, despite strictly meeting WP:GNG, or that the notability will not continue, despite WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The subject has met established thresholds for notability, despite the unsupported statements by new or otherwise-dormant accounts. Arguments that subject is involved in "only a few events" is a tacit admittance that the subject clears WP:1E. Reil (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The article itself was created by a new or dormant account, so that issue is a two-edged sword. Futhermore, you're assuming the "events" this person is involved in are both 1) actually notable and 2) they had a major role in said events, both of which are dubious. Getting replied to by Mr. Beast on Twitter isn't a major event. This person has had absolutely zero offline impact. Jingle38 (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. I would advise against dismissing legitimate observations of the AFD with "this other similar guy made the article" (what is being discussed is the actual article and its notability) 2. Im not sure why you refer to her getting replied to by Mr. Beast as your example when that is part one of the smaller, less notable events she has been involved in. 3. Im unsure where you draw the idea that something (which has been covered by RS) is only notable if it had offline impact, we would need to delete a lot of articles if that were true. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The article was created by a new or dormant account through WP:AFC, which has more rigor than a flat statement made in stark contrast to actual policy and sources provided.
 * The repeated assertion of "zero offline impact" is meaningless. The standards of notability aren't tied to locality, be it online, in a press room, or in the streets, or in my head. The standards brought up in this AFD are in short: More than one event covered, by more than one independent, reliable source. Whether you or I think an event warranted coverage doesn't factor into the notability calculus at play, so long as that coverage exists, and each event has been covered by one or more perennial sources that are clearly independent of the subject.
 * The "major role" in events is an interesting point to bring up, but only seems to apply to one of the three events currently in the article. This leaves two events which were driven primarily by the subject--notably more than one. Reil (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not have much opinion about the notability of Juniper (and WP:GNG has been argued here to the point where I could not provide any extra value of it if I tried), but steer clear of this argument:
 * > The article itself was created by a new or dormant account,
 * WP:INVOLVE -- What matters is the value of the article itself. TheRealOj32 (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Daniel Rigal, Tulsa Politics fan, and Reil, who expressed my thoughts perfectly and elaborated on a few points I hadnt considered. Googleguy007 (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * *Weak delete per WP:SUSTAINED as others have said - only passing mentions. Would support a merge to Goblin mode and/or Snickers dick vein. Tableguy28 (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Excuse the poor formatting. Tableguy28 (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - The circumstances of this article's creation were very fishy and sudden, the account behind the creation appeared out of the blue, making it believable that she created her own article, (Big no-no) and I would bring up personalities like Miles Routledge, Gunther Fehlinger, and Chris Chan not having articles but that would just straight up lean into WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, which I would like to avoid for the sake of civil discussion in this deletion nomination. Rorr404 🗣️ ✍️ 🖼️ 🌐 17:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * - As an additional comment, this article seems to be written weirdly with heavy leaning into informal and overly-(self?)-appraising wording, such as "However, she later realized that it was better to make fun of her political enemies." and the fact that in the references list, there is a separate part for primary sources. Rorr404 🗣️ ✍️ 🖼️ 🌐 17:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Despite my keep !vote, I agree that the wording (and, to some extent, overall article structure) is in need of some serious work. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In fact, the subject is daunted by the ongoing personal attacks on her in this AFD, and on Twitter itself in the wake of it, and would prefer it was deleted -  David Gerard (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I wanted to say that she may writing her own article too. I mean we assume good faith but it seems that way to me too. AaronY (talk) 10:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It really isnt AGF to baselessly imply or accuse another user of being an articles subject, that combined with the fact that juniper has specifically said she wants the page deleted (imo) puts this matter to rest. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, per David Gerard and other's above. This is a very borderline case, but on balance there seems to be just enough source to scrape past GNG in my view. Cakelot1  ☞&#xFE0F;  talk  22:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, This person has done somewhat notable things, however barely enough to get a wiki article. Wiki articles are mostly around things that have made an impact, and the things Junlper has done aren't that huge of an impact. Sure, maybe getting noticed by Snickers is a big impact to someone, but I don't think it justifies an article. -Chicken4War (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nominator. Cjhard (talk) 02:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak redirect per David Gerard. I would have voted keep per TulsaPoliticsFan if she didn't specifically ask for this not to exist since she's getting harassed. If there's an excuse, opt for safety. Replace with the redirect to Goblin mode. --~ ฅ(ↀωↀ&#61;) neko-channyan 15:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm going to say this now. Do not harass Juniper for this. I am not Juniper. Do not base your decisions on what she said. She's also said that if the article survives it would be funny and cute. Don't base your decisions on this. Personisinsterest (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You're sort of burying the lede here, which is that she also said it's causing her harassment and she's in favor of its deletion. The fact that you've clung to that off handed comment and insist we not take it into consideration can only lead me to believe you're a bit of an unhealthily attached fan. Paragon Deku (talk) 15:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Subject seems at most ambivalent and has spoken to favorability of the either outcome, rather than requesting a specific outcome (despite your use of the word "request" elsewhere in the page).
 * Furthermore, Wikipedia does not appear to have any policy resembling a Right to be forgotten for notable subjects. The closest I could find was WP:courtesy vanishing, which applies specifically to user pages. It seems a subject's own comments affects neither notability specifically, or the policy on their article's existence more generally. This makes sense to me, given that otherwise prominent, but negatively covered figures would quite frequently quash articles. I'd like to see policy regarding requests for deletion (in addition to evidence of a direct request), or otherwise directly addressed concerns about notability. Reil (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * “I am for the mods deleting it!” seems as clear of a request for deletion as one could take for an aloof Twitter poster. I’m not necessarily saying that’s the smoking gun on deletion, but it seems clear cut what they really want. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You are twisting this. She is for the mods deleting it, but wouldn't mind if it stayed. And, you are supposed to argue about the notability of the subject, not the subjects opinion on having an article. No Wikipedia policy says that you have to listen to them. This is not the hill to die on. I think you should spend your efforts arguing notability. Personisinsterest (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ve already made my argument for notability. I simply pointed out you were burying the lede. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the subject wanting an article deleted is a reason to delete. Of course we should care about harassment, but at the same time these things tend to die down after a few days or a week or two. I suspect what's fueling the harassment is probably more the on-going contentious AFD more so than the existence of the article. Viral AFD's happen every once in a while (I'm remembering Yaroslav Hunka a few weeks ago) and they generate a lot of attention, but it tends to die down after a few weeks. I guess TLDR; I don't think harassment is going to stop while the AFD is open and I don't think a keep result will result in more harassment long-term than a delete result. I could be wrong though. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE does exist, but it has three clear requirements: 1. the subject is relatively unknown and non-public, 2. the subject has clearly requested deletion, and 3. there is no rough consensus in the AFD. I don't think 1 or 2 apply here, and 3 will be determined at the conclusion of the discussion. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This could potentially be unprecedented when it comes to defining what makes a subject "non-public." Junlper is certainly relatively known in online spaces (enough to brush shoulders with non-anonymous public figures), but her account is relatively pseudonymous, and she has expressed a lack of desire to have her personal details be a point of common knowledge. She also was recently doxxed. Could it be argued that a relatively popular internet figure that takes pains to remain pseudonymous and avoid attention around their personal life is, in a way, non-public? Paragon Deku (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * She did not ask for this article to be deleted; she said she would be fine if it was (but also that she would be fine if it wasn't). Given this, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE does not apply here as she hasn't clearly requested deletion. Giving multiple media interviews regarding a subject generally means you are not a non-public figure (Who is a low-profile individual, while not part of BLPREQUESTDELETE, is decent guidance regarding this). Obviously we should not dox her here, and we don't. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 00:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I must also concede I don't know if June is a pseudonym or not, but I do take umbrage with this implication that she didn't ask for it to be deleted; this is a person whose comedic style heavily involves sarcasm. The only statement she gave that could even imply ambiguity was "if it survives it'll be so funny and cute but if it gets deleted i'll stop getting harassed so that would be cool too actually." This was followed by the explicit statement of "i am for the mods deleting it!" which, when taken in tandem with the prior mentioned affinity for sarcasm, seems clear to me that she does want it deleted and was simply waxing poetic on the novelty of having a wikipedia page. Paragon Deku (talk) 00:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Either statement could be sarcastic, though. She has not been clear about her desires, and if she wants the article deleted, she should clearly communicate that. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 00:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * it was the other way around. she said she was in favor of the mods deleting it, but it would be funny and cute if it stayed. she also replied to the depths of wikipedia tweet with "it can be a silly life, at times...". There is no clear way of figuring out what she wants here and we shouldn't take it into account. She is also not a low-profile individual. Do relatively unknown people get Buzzfeed News interviews and articles about their suspension from twitter? Personisinsterest (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Privately, Juniper has said that she would like if the article stays but wouldn't mind it getting deleted and that harassment has died down. Regardless, you shouldn't take it into account and the article should be judged exclusively on notability. I have proof of my claims and will provide it if asked. Personisinsterest (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I can confirm this. I Will be striking my comments on the matter. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to thank you for being very understanding and calm during this Personisinsterest (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * She's in favor of either outcome! That's what im saying. She does not care either way! Keep and Delete should not judge the notability of this article based on what she says. Judge the article on its merits. Personisinsterest (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)


 * For closing admin I'm sure you'll notice this, but at least eight of the "Delete" votes above are from editors with less than 100 edits who have never commented on an AfD before, and are policy-free (plus two IP "votes" as well). I'm pretty sure that all of these can be discarded, because it's fairly clear what is going on there. Black Kite (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If it is fair to discard the contributions of editors with less than 100 edits, then why not discard the whole page which was created by a new account whose (less than 100) edit history is almost exclusively about junlper? Horarum (talk) 13:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Because we want to encourage people to start editing and making articles so we try to not to punish new accounts who draft an article, submit it for creation, and then have it approved by another editor (See above, the article went through WP:AFC). That behavior is good for wikipedia. Creating an account just to vote in one AFD is probably not good for Wikipedia and those editors may not be here to build an encyclopedia (WP:NOTHERE). Hope this helps explain why AFD's are skeptical of IP votes and editors with few edits. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We don’t want to bite newcomers who are actually trying to contribute and produce content. The same doesn’t go for blatant off-site astroturfing. Paragon Deku (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I went through the process to get an article through according to the rules and am going to start editing other topics. These are likely just haters from Twitter that don't have any argument and just dislike her anyway. Personisinsterest (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Because it's a clear sign of an off-Wikipedia campaign to disrupt the AfD. This happens a lot. Feel free to put "Juniper Wikipedia" into the X search engine and all will be clear. Black Kite (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Because its a pretty good indicator that someone didnt happen to come across the AFD through regular wiki-editor behavior, and instead was canvassed in. Googleguy007 (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note to closer I have over 34k edits and voted to delete. Hope the gatekeepers allow my vote to matter. AaronY (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody's 'vote' matters, per the box at the top of the page, merely the consensus on policy applied to this article. I'm sure there's no gates to be kept from. Reil (talk) 05:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe you need to read the full discussion here, many are trying to dismiss cogent complaints solely due to post count.
 * Also, thanks for the lecture and tutorial. I've done about one million AFDs but it's always good to be reminded of the basics I learned well over 10 years ago. AaronY (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would contend that in a discussion with major canvassing issues, an account having 0 edits before casting their !vote is actually relevant. Googleguy007 (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've done about one million AFDs but it's always good to be reminded of the basics I learned well over 10 years ago. Besides the obvious fallacy of "I've been on this site for longer than you have, therefore my argument about whether this article should be kept must hold more weight than yours", the claim that you have done a lot of AFDs therefore you are experienced isn't even true. The last AfD !vote you have casted was in January 2020, which is 3.5 years ago. toolforge says you have only !voted ten times throughout your editing history here, so I fail to see how your tenure in afds is even relevant in this discussion here. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 13:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ironically, my reply was not based on judging your aptitude based on your participation numbers, but on the content of your reply: namely your referring to things as if they are straight polls with votes to be counted or thrown out. Reil (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion, not a vote. What matters is whether your argument is policy-based, or not. In your delete !vote, you said that she does not have "sustained notability". I don't think that is even a thing. WP:SUSTAINED only says that having sustained coverage would be an indicator of notability, not the other way around. Not having sustained coverage cannot be used to say that she is not notable. Perhaps you would like to perform a source analysis, to suggest why the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG nor WP:BASIC? 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 07:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I knew all this like 9 years ago, but thanks. AaronY (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think my comment was fairly clear as to which Delete !votes had obviously originated from off-wiki canvassing, which was clearly not all of them, and certainly not yours. Black Kite (talk) 15:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering in a non-patronizing tone. Some that are just "keep" or "delete" I agree don't add much regardless of where they come from but I'm sure the admin closing these who has done a ton of these knows that so it seemed VERY unnecessary to me. Also, a few made arguments agreed with and it doesn't matter how many posts they have in that case. AaronY (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - subject has received significant coverage from Vox, Rolling Stone, and BuzzFeed News, which are all reliable according to WP:RSP. Meets WP:BASIC. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 02:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Very strong leaning delete:
 * Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:BIODEL (both policies) due to the subject's unequivocal request to delete (note to closer: that request was made after the majority of above comments were posted) and her reports of harassment due to us, which we should take seriously. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE says discussions where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete, at the closer's discretion.
 * Per the fact that her notability is borderline (as acknowledged by many Keep voters). Of the 3 links posted above by Deadbeef, one is Rolling Stone which is deemed generally unreliable for the subject area (the incident involves so-called wokeness, cancel culture, and right-wing media), and two are interviews; while interviews do provide an indication of significance, we can't use them extensively to source article contents because the subject's responses are primary (per footnote (d) of WP:OR and common sense) and not subject to the publication's editorial oversight. Above, a Techdirt report is described as containing non-trivial coverage; I disagree, it's a passing mention. I don't have an hour to spend making a nice source analysis table, but I checked every source we use: Advocate is a passing mention, Gizmodo doesn't mention her, The Messenger is completely unreliable (she didn't coin "goblin mode"), WaPo REF18 doesn't mention her, SpielTime is unreliable, LATimes is a quintessential passing mention (just quotes a tweet), same for Kotuak; PolitiFact, which dedicates the entire article to "snickers vein", doesn't mention her once; same for WaPo REF9, links to her tweet but doesn't mention her, same for NYT REF8, same for TheFocus (unreliable?), same for CNN; Dictionary.com never mentions her; Insider provides SIGCOV of goblin mode but not of her, as does RollingStone (setting aside the fact that it's an interview and GUNREL). Sourcing is weaker than I thought when I first read the article.
 * As a more secondary argument, I do think WP:SUSTAINED applies here; I don't think biographies should be based on bursts of coverage.
 * DFlhb (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Rolling Stone's coverage of her is more about culture than about politics and society, but even if you consider it as unreliable, it doesn't change much. Could you elaborate a bit on how the Insider source doesn't provide significant coverage of her? The headline is literally "The person behind .. goblin mode" and talks about her involvement in the event.
 * The Messenger is completely unreliable (she didn't coin "goblin mode") What? Are we just going to throw away an entire source just because they say she coined the phrase? Correct me if I am wrong, but BuzzFeed News also says she created the term. So is there some insight that I am missing?
 * As a more secondary argument, I do think WP:SUSTAINED applies here; I don't think biographies should be based on bursts of coverage. which part of SUSTAINED applies? The part on WP:BLP1E? How would WP:BLP1E apply here? 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 09:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Re: Insider: I meant that it provides significant coverage of her viral tweet (including her thinking behind it), but not SIGCOV of her or her account. I don't want to sound nitpicky but that's why I think that source fits better at Goblin mode than here.
 * Re: Messenger: it's documented (in sources we cite) that she popularized the phrase, but didn't coin it (see WaPo REF9). And to clarify I'm treating that specific article as dubious, not the outlet in general.
 * Re: SUSTAINED: 1E is the second paragraph of SUSTAINED, I'm referring to the first para, Brief bursts (note the plural). BLPs that are collages of tweets from WP:RSBREAKING news coverage are unlikely to give us a full or balanced picture of a subject, even a succinct one.
 * I also want to emphasise that my three bullet points were listed in reverse order of importance. Wikipedia often doesn't act on borderline-notable BLPs' requests for deletion, despite policy, but it's something I care a lot about. DFlhb (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * She popularized the phrase and most people didn't know about it before this. It would be a reasonable mistake to say she coined it. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Uh, so you were talking about Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. I wonder how you interpreted that sentence, since to me, that just means "additional conditions apply". Just saying that she has brief bursts of news coverage doesn't automatically make her not notable. So, would you like to make an unequivocal statement that you believe this subject does not meet WP:GNG? 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 03:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It was not unequivocal. She also said she like if it stayed but wouldn't mind. The Techdirt report is not a passing mention.
 * Passing mention is not when Techdirt says "I guess maybe it is aesthetically pleasing after all…
 * Of course, Mr. “Free Speech Absolutist” who has baselessly called people who annoy him pedophiles on multiple occasions, couldn’t allow anyone to make a joke over his new “aesthetically pleasing” news link displays by referring to him as a pedophile, so when a nonsense peddler — whose sole claim to fame is baselessly implying tons of people are pedophiles — highlighted the Juniper tweet above, Elon responded… and suspended the account. I guess comedy is no longer legal on the new, more aesthetically pleasing exTwitter? Of course, in true Streisand Effect fashion, now more people are learning about all of this and reporters are asking questions. So, just to sum up, we have a very silly change that Elon made that makes news links basically impossible to parse on exTwitter, which opened up a fun form of trolling, which many people used to make fun of Elon Musk himself. One of those troll tweets jokingly called Elon Musk a pedophile, which is one of Elon’s own favorite go to moves when challenged. Another account, whose entire claim to fame is baselessly suggesting random people are pedophiles, highlighted this to Musk, and Musk (who pretends to be a “free speech absolutist” to the absolute most gullible people in the world who believe him), then suspended that account for breaking “X’s” rules (by which Musk means “offended Elon Musk personally.”) That user’s backup account was also suspended, but this post is long enough that we’re just going to leave it there.
 * Anyhoo, please don’t post this article to exTwitter, because everyone will just think it’s an image anyway and not click on it. Updated: Basically just as this post went live, Elon unsuspended the Juniper account, so really, we’re back to content moderation by whims. Updated again: And… an hour later, the account was suspended again. Whims, whims, whims." Personisinsterest (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is 3490 characters. The section about Juniper is 1838 characters. That is 52.664756447% of the article. More than half. More than half of an article is not a passing mention. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please don't WP:BLUDGEON, especially as the article creator; you've posted numerous responses here.
 * The tweet you are quoting actually says: if it survives it'll be so funny and cute but if it gets deleted i'll stop getting harassed so that would be cool too actually. That's ironyposting; "i'll stop getting harassed so that would be cool too actually" is an obvious understatement.
 * Only a small portion of your quote provides usable content about Junlper (by my count, 78 words, which is not SIGCOV). I forgot to note, above, that Techdirt is a group blog, which doesn't confer notability. See prior discussions about Techdirt at RSN, here and here. DFlhb (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Calling something that is clearly ambiguous "unequivocal" is just wrong. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 19:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the tweet I linked, not the tweet I hadn't seen. DFlhb (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've seen evidence (not posted here) that Junlper's walked back the request more clearly since then. That solves the biggest issue for me, so I've struck that and toned down my vote to leaning delete. I still think the sourcing is a bit borderline, but, no major issue with it being kept. DFlhb (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * keep coverage in several major publications means they clearly meet wp:GNG—blindlynx 15:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - coverage in major media Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable, and regardless of outcome as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC restore Juniper (disambiguation) to the Juniper page Gnangarra 05:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Juniper is a different article to this one (about the plants) and has never been a disambig page (since it's creation in 2003). This page is at JunLper (with an L) which wouldn't be a useful redirect for anything but the twitter personality, imo. Cakelot1  ☞&#xFE0F;  talk  06:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * hatnote on the page "JUNIPER" redirects here. For other uses, see Juniper (disambiguation). Gnangarra 07:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * JUNIPER redirects there, but "Juniper" doesnt. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * spelt JUNIPER with an I this is not what people searching for JUNIPER are looking for, the article has a hat note redirecting to Juniper (disambiguation) and its listed there. We dont redirect from spelling errors, and definitely dont list those spelling errors on DAB pages. These links are being put in place to pretend the article isnt a walled garden of without notability. Gnangarra 13:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:DIFFCAPS. From a quick glance, it seems like no other page at Juniper (disambiguation) uses an all-caps stylization that could be confused with JUN[L]PER. The closest are Juniper Networks, which uses an all-caps, san-serif stylization with a similar I/l but includes "Networks" prominently and the defunct Juniper Bank, which uses an all-caps stylization but in a serif font so the I is easily discernible. By contrast, the Twitter account prominently and consistently uses all-caps in its stylization to try and confuse people. The name is also apparently pronounced like "Juniper", so unless there's clear evidence of other Junipers using an all-caps stylization, there isn't really an issue with this that the current hatnote to the DAB isn't solving. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:DIFFCAPS. From a quick glance, it seems like no other page at Juniper (disambiguation) uses an all-caps stylization that could be confused with JUN[L]PER. The closest are Juniper Networks, which uses an all-caps, san-serif stylization with a similar I/l but includes "Networks" prominently and the defunct Juniper Bank, which uses an all-caps stylization but in a serif font so the I is easily discernible. By contrast, the Twitter account prominently and consistently uses all-caps in its stylization to try and confuse people. The name is also apparently pronounced like "Juniper", so unless there's clear evidence of other Junipers using an all-caps stylization, there isn't really an issue with this that the current hatnote to the DAB isn't solving. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's sufficient coverage here from reliable sources (e.g. Insider, RS, Vox, Buzzfeed News, Techdirt, etc.) over the past couple years that WP:GNG seems to be met. It's not an obviously clear case, but there's enough in-depth coverage spread out over all the sources. Redirecting wouldn't make sense because it's an WP:XY type situation where goblin mode and a subsection about Twitter bans could all be plausible targets. It's better to have one central page instead of splitting up the content and padding it with extra cross-referencing as some have suggested. As I said above, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE does not apply here because the request is not unequivocal (she's also said she wouldn't mind the article being kept) and she's a public figure per WP:LOWPROFILE (multiple interviews, huge following with 100s of thousands of followers and millions of views). I also don't think that consensus is actually equally split here as many of the delete !votes are based in WP:IDONTLIKEIT/WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type votes incorrectly asserting that notability can't be derived from Twitter, that articles about living people must include more details about the actual person even if they are pseudonymous, or that other similarly-popular accounts don't have articles, though that is left to the discretion of the closing admin. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are a million Twitter shitposters out there, many of them setting some trends. What makes this user different? It's not notable in the slightest. -- User:Meme_scholar0. 15:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note This is yet another OTHERSTUFF IDONTLIKEIT argument which doesnt ignores actual sources and claims a lack of notability based on the subjects status as primarily a twitter account. Also, this is the accounts 16th total edit and first AFD edit. Googleguy007 (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Two popular tweets do not qualify a person for inclusion in Wikipedia. Zacwill (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note this argument doesn’t deal with actual notability or sources. Googleguy007 (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My point is that this individual has no "actual notability". In any case, arguing against every deletion vote individually, as you're doing on this page, feels BLUDGEON-y. Zacwill (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Googleguy007: I think the amount of replies to delete !votes are a bit excessive now. We should trust the closing admin's (or non-admin) judgement, as they will toss out the non policy-based comments. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 08:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Content here might make sense in the context of other articles, but the subject themselves I don't think has sustained, in-depth coverage of themselves, versus talking about goblin mode or spats with other internet celebrities. No one is talking about them outside of coverage of those specific kerfuffles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 18:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Considering previous precedent with YouTuber article deletions, I believe this far from meets the notability requirements despite having several high profile news articles as she isn't as high profile enough like Dril for example. SpeedrunnerInTraining (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What? Being "high profile" is not part of our notability guidelines. Also Junlper is not primarily a YouTuber so applying those precedents (which you have not cited) does not make much sense. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 19:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I am not at all a particularly experienced editor. I just believed that considering both are social media entities, I would apply the logic of an account being allowed to have an article would be similar. As for what I was attempting to refer to, here WikiProject YouTube/Notability. SpeedrunnerInTraining (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.