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 Delete. Looking at the arguments put forth by both sides, it's clear that at this time, "Boxxy" does not meet our standards for inclusion. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boxxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable Internet meme, especially per WP:RECENT. Scootey (talk) 05:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Strong keep Subject meets criteria of notable internet meme - third party links are from major news sources. Note: we went through a deletion review on this only a few hours ago[1], and Boxxy passed and was recreated. FlyingToaster 06:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV was for a speedy deletion and endorsed sending to AFD. Mr.Z-man 06:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To say it was "endorsed" for AFD is a misnomer - see burnte's comment below. FlyingToaster 06:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And to bring the fact that there was one up as a reason for keeping is misleading, see my comment below. Mr.Z-man 06:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What internet meme criteria are you talking about? I didn't know there was one.--Otterathome (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otterathome: I'm referring to WP:WEB, which applies to all web content, including memes. FlyingToaster 22:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to WP:WEB it must be historically significance, how this could be possibly be historical significant is beyond me.--Otterathome (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep We just went through this with a recreation argument. Major sources have caught on, it's ongoing, and deleting it helps no one. Bloody deletionists. If there's enough argument to recreate it, there certainly isn't enough to delete it again. burnte (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV was for a speedy deletion and endorsed sending to AFD. Mr.Z-man 06:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV consensus was "allow re-creation. Article may be sent to Afd, but may not be speedily deleted in the future." It says MAY, which in no way means it is an endorsement or directive. It only means AFD is still allowed, while speedy deletion is now of the table. Please refrain from correcting people in the future unless you know what you're talking about. burnte (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments, "We just went through this with a recreation argument" are misleading; by starting off with a comment about the DRV, you make it sound like the fact that there was undeletion argument should have some merit on the outcome of this AFD, as the closer specifically mentioned that an AFD was acceptable, it should not. Please refrain from being a dick; don't tell me what to do. Who do you think you are? Mr.Z-man 06:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Pretty sure that the 'don't be a dick' thing applies to YOU more than it does to him, my friend ;) And I will, in turn, and very deservedly, ask you just who the hell you happen to think YOU are. 190.78.132.241 (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's someone who's not so wiki-elite as to have his username in Broadway font with italics. --TIB(talk) 08:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, HTML is so elitist. Mr.Z-man 00:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you who I am. I'm a user of Wikipedia like everyone else. You don't like my apples? Don't shake my tree. Don't want to hear what I have to say? Don't talk to me. As for being a dick, I was in fact being bold. If you don't like it go away. I'm an inclusionist who will vociferously stand up to petty turf battles by small minded wikitards such as yourself who think this is some holy shrine into which only the most worthy information must pass. I will overturn your tables every chance I get in order to promote the free exchange of information that is important to small subsets of people. I will always fight the tyranny of the majority, and I will always call out liars such as yourself. The truth was that this was revived because it was found worthy my the majority of people who spoke up. That DOES have some weight, and that's provable by the fact it is no longer eligible for speedy deletion. Contribute positively or bugger off, because people like me will call you out on your misinformation every time. burnte (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh captain, my captain. --TIB (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are not major sources and saying something is 'ongoing' sounds like a prediction/WP:ATA#CRYSTAL.--Otterathome (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sole (dubious) reliable source is a blog for the online version of a respected newspaper, the other mentions of this meme are from lesser known 'fan sites' and similar. Does not appear to meet WP:WEB. The subject of the article is a short-lived meme that has little relevance beyond those who frequent 4chan and has received no major news coverage. --Chasingsol^(talk) 06:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - all of the "reliable sources" seem to be blogs; some more reliable than others, but blogs nonetheless. Mr.Z-man 06:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I would also add, quoted from WP:BLP: "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." A similar section exists in WP:V. The Guardian blog may be a usable source, as the Guardian likely asserts some editorial control over it, the rest of them are rather inappropriate, especially for a BLP of a minor. Mr.Z-man 06:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yet another flash-in-the-pan "internet celebrity." krimpet✽ 06:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flash-in-the-pan, eh? Great, now I have a liable reason for the deletion of Tay Zonday's article. She's not an internet celebrity, by the way, she's a meme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.35.201 (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cloaking something in flashy "Web 2.0" buzzwords doesn't change things... she's a flavor-of-the-month ephemeral celebrity with no lasting notability. krimpet✽ 03:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:ATA#CRYSTAL comes to mind when talking about "flash in the pan".. Blue Wagon (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • CRYSTAL applies the other way as well. There's also no evidence that Boxxy is going to have lasting notability. Mr.Z-man 18:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at best this is WP:BLPSE. No lasting notability. Mayalld (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yet another flash in the pan which hardly warrants coverage from this encyclopedia or any other. JBsupreme (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My primary motivation in nominating this article is that Boxxy's "fame" is not mainstream and is limited to those within the 4chan and Youtube "communities" and will very likely end up being a "flash in the pan". Furthermore, I'm not quite sure how Boxxy is classified as a "meme" (even though I used that term in the original nomination)...there are a lot of eccentric YouTube "celebrities" and Boxxy happens to be one who gained a number of followers. While I do support deletion of the article now, I do think that it certainly could be re-created if the topic somehow gains notability in the future. Scootey (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for several reasons. Firstly, over 300,000 google results and 2 million youtube views on her account 'boxxybabee'(not to mention views of her on other websites. Has been featured in articles by the Guardian, metro and The Inquisitr. Wikipedia is not paper applies here, I believe. She has been featured by well known youtube celb sxephil in a video (and brought up in a second video) . People will be coming to Wikipedia for information on her and this is a well written article. She even has her own website now, boxxy.com. Just my two cents.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 07:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Invalid arguments, see WP:GHITS + WP:POPULARPAGE.--Otterathome (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the celebrities or their staff may disagree that notability is not temporary. Just ask their agents how much they worry about this! The curse of a fading star, etc. j/k! ;) --92.19.116.17 (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Very notable. Major sources. LOTS of major sources. Much more than poor Limecat, who didn't stand a chance.

--Zaiger420 (talk) 08:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment: Non blog source from the Metro.co.uk, OL article may be considered a blog, but it is in print also.--Zaiger420 (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a single purpose account. This account is at least 2 years old, I just haven't the reasoning to edit anything else. I am not a noob at this. I am a sysop at another large wiki. Whoever added this tag is biased. I wrote an article on my wiki (which is unfortunately blacklisted) on Boxxy on the 11th and at this second "This page has been accessed 214,221 times" Are you going to tell me that this isn't notable? What about Tron Guy? At least Boxxy didn't write this article herself like Jay Maynard did.--Zaiger420 (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As said above, there's more sources on this than the Star Wars Kid. And it's not just random blogspot blogs, it's major news publications like The Guardian and metro.co.uk. When it's big enough for these organizations to think it's worth writing about, it's notable. At least for now. --TIB (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. I have looked at WP:GNG and this article passes all the guidelines as set out there. Should not be deleted, and is mentioned in the main 4chan article as well.--'Cause It's No Good (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)— 'Cause It's No Good (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. Meets both WP:BLP and WP:GNG. Blue Wagon (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you min explaining how an article sourced entirely by blogs meets BLP? Mr.Z-man 16:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You go by what information you have. Just because there isn't a large sum of information (See Anonymous (group) for a "large" source list) doesn't mean the article isn't worth keeping or worth writing about. Blue Wagon (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No that's not how it works. WP:BLP and WP:V explicitly state that blogs and other self-published sources are inappropriate sources for writing about a living person unless they have some editorial oversight or they're written by the subject. There needs to be reliable sources that some editorial oversight. This article currently has one, which is not enough for notability, nor is it enough to write an article from. Mr.Z-man 18:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to 4chan if people really want it as a search term. No news articles to be seen - just blog entries. The only close to reliable source I can see is the guardianuk blog entry which, if you read it, is basically not about her but about the 4chan reaction to it as are most, if not all of the rest. This is not a boxxy meme but another 4chan one. All of the needed information can be in the 4chan article - we do not need, and do not have the sources for, this flash-in-the-pan 16ish yr old. She has zero notability outside of the 4chan and subsequent activity - Peripitus (Talk) 09:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep We're going through this again? It is notable and meets all the requirements for an entry. This is not limited solely to one site and has been mentioned by various other sites, including the Guardian and Metro. Massive numbers of views on her videos and the copies of her videos on many sites, remixes, parodies, images, etc. Various blogs and YouTube/video based productions have mentions of it too. It's easily as worthy of documentation as various other similar entries. No reason to be snobby over this one. --92.19.116.17 (talk) 10:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all sources are blogs (one of which is reliable) which is certainly not appropriate for biographical articles, making it violate many core wikipedia policies, including but not limited to: WP:BIO, WP:BLP, WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:V, and as I said in the deletion review, it is a perfect violation of WP:1E.--Otterathome (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

• • "How Boxxy brought the web to its knees" From The Guardian blog

    The only usable source, but still shouldn't be used on its own as it is a biographical article.

• It's not simply a biography, it's an article about the phenomenon, which he seems more interested in.--92.19.116.17 (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • "Meet Boxxy, Possibly the Most Batshit Crazy Person on YouTube" from inquisitr.com

    The fact the title is 'Meet Boxxy, Possibly the Most Batshit Crazy Person on YouTube' and the article is very short, and shows unmoderated comments like "FIND THIS CUNT GET HER ADDRESS AND NAME HER FAN FAGS WILLSTALK HER AND SHE WILL GO THE FUCK AWAY DO IT FAGGOTS" and also uses 'WTF' slang pretty much dismisses this as any kind of reliable source.

• Come on now, that is simply misleading. Judge the article, not the comments made by others. If I scribbled in the margins of your newspaper or spoke out comments to you after you read it that would not mean that the article was suddenly no longer valid. Wikipedia is often full of arguments and abuse in talk and user pages. That doesn't mean that the articles are all worthless or invalid. Attempting to pick out these quotes that aren't from the author is a low move. Discussion of a pieces does not change the piece itself. --92.19.116.17 (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • " Boxxy, or How A Teenage Girl May Destroy The Internet As We Know It Without Really Trying," from metro.co.uk

    This was looking like a somewhat usable source until the author decided to comply with anonymous' requests to replace all instances of 4chan with ebaumsworld.

• Still perfectly valid.--92.19.116.17 (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Publication of the article in the interactive metro.co.uk doesn't make the original printed publication in Metro (Associated Metro Limited) any less notable or less reliable. --94.194.179.224 (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • "boxxybabee - the new Lonelygirl15?" from bannerblog.com

    'bannerblog' authors full name: "Ashadi" oh and did you know my friend submitted this article via http://www.bannerblog.com.au/submit.php ?

• I have a friend that writes for a newspaper. I don't think having a friend makes you invalid as a source. ;) I think I know what you're trying to say, but you have to be clear.--92.19.116.17 (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • "From emo to bemos" from marketingfacts.nl

    emo/bemo bad translation? also from reading a translation from their about page it seems to say they are not responsible for any content on any blogs and are the personal opinions of the author. So just another user user-submitted blog.

  • So, my name is Boxxy… from marketingfacts.nl (again)

    this article is the 3rd most popular this week with "Viewed: 9786 times", showing what kind of visitors visit the site and how popular it is. also see above.

• That would seem like a snobby and cheap strawman attack. Nothing to do with the article. You're attacking the readership now with these swipes. Tsk. Please stick to the main issues rather than make veiled insults towards the readers. At the least it's not very nice. I do agree with your concerns over that segment though and feel that Dutch readers would be better off to judge it than bad machine translations and guessing from those who cannot read it. You clearly have difficulty understanding it and therefore have difficulty judging its fitness for this use. A tricky issue.--92.19.116.17 (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • "Foxy Boxxy : celle qui parle pour ne rien dire" from madmoizelle.com

    Another strange title and tiny article. Reads like a blog, also doesn't appear to contain any real authors name. Pretty sure this is just another user submitted blog.

• Hey now! It isn't the size that counts. It's how you use it. ;) Again, I share similar concerns as mentioned with the previous site.--92.19.116.17 (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • 4Chan.org Threatened By Internet War Against Boxxy from dtgeeks.com

    Written by 'Jay', spelling mistakes/bad grammar, unprofessional babbling etc. Yep, just another tech-blog.

• I believe this one isn't one of the big ones, either. Again, similar concerns.--92.19.116.17 (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, all the sources are blogs most likely written by browsers of 4chan (same with the keep votes too I think), only one of which is usable as a somewhat reliable source. Making the article unsuitable according to core Wikipedia policies (see my delete edit above).--Otterathome (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For the metro and Guardian examples these were certainly not user submitted blogs and are hosted by the websites of print newspapers.--92.19.116.17 (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because someone browses 4chan does not make them invalid to document what happened. A lot of this happened on 4chan, but most of it didn't. The whole internet was involved here, right down to irc. I wrote an article about Boxxy on another wiki on the 11th and as of right now it has 208,622 views. Just because someone goes to a website that you don't like doesn't make the author unable to make a documentation. You are being biased and prejudice. --Zaiger420 (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

No, it is only notable to a select few internet users, mainly Anonymous (group) I'd imagine (200k views means little on the internet), see WP:LOCALFAME.--Otterathome (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a load of BS. I am not affiliated with anonymous and it is notable to me, neither is sxePhil or his subscribers or most of the millions of others who have seen her videos on her account and the other mirrors that host her videos. You are really stretching there. Also internet or not, two hundred thousand people is a LOT of people. Right now there are 217,058 views, that is 8,396 people wanting to know about Boxxy in just over 12 hours. I am quoting these numbers because it is an encyclopedia that people are looking her up at. As stated below, the readers interests should be taken into consideration here. Wikipedia policy contradicts itself from one policy to another in many circumstances. There are far more trivial and less notable articles on this site with far fewer sources. --Zaiger420 (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

200,000 hits is nothing on an internet with 1 billion users, WP:POPULARPAGE, WP:INTERESTING and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS are bad arguments so should be avoided.--Otterathome (talk) 08:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two hundred and thirthy thousand now actually. Off the record, on a site explaining an event and having nothing to do with the meme itself, that is huge. Especially for 2 weeks time. I am willing to bet there are many more articles that have been here for a lot longer that don't have close to that. It is obvious that this is a matter of certain people not liking anything that has to do with the internet. The fact that this VfD has gotten this many responses is enough to prove notability. Wikipedia is serious business.--Zaiger420 (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Dramatica is totally unrelated to 4chan and internet memes? Yeah, right. Mr.Z-man 00:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you have brought this discussion on a tangent, ED:ISNOT. Saying that is like saying that Wikipedia is associated with Harry Potter. Anyway that is not what I meant and you know it. What I was saying that I wrote an article about an event that happened elsewhere on the internet and it was very popular. People want to know about it. Wikipedia is a family friendly, non offensive site that people go to for information. I think that there should be other options for people, as do most of the people on this VfD. --Zaiger420 (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteThe only link that is reliable is the Guardian blog and that is still just a blog. Maybe it deserves an expanded mention on the 4chan page bigger than it currently has, but as it is violates WP:1E it doesn't deserver a page of it's own at the moment. Alberon (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Guardian is not "just a blog". It is held to a higher editorial standard as part of a reputable news outlet. It is also written by the Guardian's technology correspondent in an official capacity, not a hyperactive teen with too much time on his hands in between classes. It's wrong to lump him in with every other nobody's website on the internet. I'll be waiting to see where this latest celebrity twist goes.--92.19.116.17 (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I read the Guardian's website on a daily basis and I do know who writes the blog in question. However it isn't enough to save the Wiki page. Even if the other blog links were notable (which they're not) it still doesn't address the problem of violating WP:1E. A mention on the 4chan page is all this minor fad deserves at the moment. That might change in the future, but at the moment it doesn't deserve a page of its own. Alberon (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That is your interpretation of what the Guardian is, then. We could argue about the credibility of said blog, however when it comes down to the fact, most people will recognize the Guardian as a credible source for the citation of an internet meme. I honestly don't see the necessity of having a universally agreed on citation for it's credibility when we are discussing any meme--if Wikipedia does not support internet culture, then I welcome you to delete every article dealing with such. You can start with Tay Zonday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.35.201 (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I DO recognise the Guardian Blog as a usuable source, but it's the only one on that page that is and that isn't enough. Otherwise this is just one-event story so far and Wikipedia is not intended to document every little piece of news. If this meme has legs then the page can be remade, but as it stands it doesn't really deserve anything more than a section on the 4chan page. Tay Zonday is an example of a internet meme that had legs and has kept going in a D-list celebrity way so he, sadly, deserves a page. Maybe Boxxy will go the same way. Far too early to tell yet. Alberon (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason why it does not have many notable sources, or (as you say) "legs," is because it is a relatively new internet meme. Give it another month...if nothing happens with this then I would have to agree with a deletion of this article. However my reasoning is why delete the article when it will most likely be made again? I feel one notable source is enough for something in which has potential of picking up more notable sources. Of course, you could also argue that the article could be restored if it did get more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.35.201 (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We seem to agree that as it currently stands it doesn't deserve a Wiki page. That may change and if it does I'll fully support the page. But I do feel in general it's best to delete pages like this and then recreate later rather than leave a load of pages lying around which shouldn't be there. There's a comment further down this page calling for the page to be salted and I definitly do not support that. Alberon (talk) 08:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Erect keep She's really cute I don't know and I like her better than Cracky Chan. -- Femmina (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Erect keep? Blue Wagon (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seems notable enough for me. A lot of very worthy sources, such as the Guardian and the Metro. Tris2000 (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- I wouldn't have voted in the DRV to allow re-creation if I didn't think the article was of good enough quality to pass muster. Also, keep in mind, this article is about the meme, not the person, so I think BLP isn't as applicable in this case as it could be if it were just about the girl. That, plus the fact that the article is pretty well sourced, means its an obvious keeper. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The meme is the person, they aren't really separable in this case. Mr.Z-man 16:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I don't think it is. In much the same way that rickrolling is not about Rick Astley, but rather a video that happens to have Rick Astley in it. The meme is seperate from the man in that case, and I think the same holds true here. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Guardian and Metro blogs satisfy the requirements for newspaper blogs in Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources, though it may be necessary to attribute to the authors in question (Bobbie Johnson and Tom Phillips), depending on the level of editorial control exercised over them by their respective newspapers. This means the subject has received non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources, which satisfies the notability requirements of WP:WEB. WP:BLP1E does not apply to this article, whose subject is the event (Boxxy the internet meme) and not the person (the girl behind the internet meme). The broader necessities of BLP do apply to the article; they should be resolved not by article deletion, but by the immediate removal of any inadequately-sourced contentious material about a living person from the article. I have trimmed some material, and I encourage others to do the same if they have further BLP concerns. Baileypalblue (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Utterly Strong Keep. People voting for a delete verdict do not know how the internet works. For those of you in favor for deleting, you might as well delete Tay Zonday. Boxxy has become a solid internet meme, and has only done it in a matter of 1 weeks time. While I can understand this seems like a meme that will quickly die away, I can assure you it will not. The admins and users of 4chan hope it dies out...but they already know the end to this story: Boxxy is staying, and I can assure you that she will be popping up in mainstream any time now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.35.201 (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ATA#CRYSTAL is not a valid keep reason.--Otterathome (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's already popular and covered by a few notable sources, so this is hardly a case of WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. Boxxy is a perfect example of a person becoming popular on the internet without any reason whatsoever. What I was stating in my "Utterly Strong Keep" comment was that she would most likely be popping up in the mainstream, because as of yet, she has not. And I also doubt that the validity of articles on Wikipedia is dictated by whether or not they have hit the mainstream yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.35.201 (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, you are assuring us that she will get more popular, that is a prediction/assumption aka using a crystal ball.--Otterathome (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete BLP1E Sceptre ^(talk) 18:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Otterathome and Chasingsol, per WP:BLP1E, and for failing WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - In the case of WP:BLP1E, wouldn't Chesley_Sullenberger fall under it? Since Cpt. Sullenberger was quite literally unheard of previous to his actions, and his notability was based off of one event? I honestly think WP:BLP1E needs rewritten. Blue Wagon (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Mr.Z-man 05:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm making a comparison of two similar BLP articles, that are both built around ONE event. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not applicable. Blue Wagon (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As a further note, WP:BASH :) Blue Wagon (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well it's a terrible comparison, you are comparing someone to emergency landed a plane of 150 people to someone who speaks to a camera, one received international media attention (compare the sources), whilst the other got mentioned in The Guardian blog and a tiny paragraph in a free newspaper under the title 'stuff we found down the back of the internet', and that's all.--Otterathome (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As true as that is, WP:BLP1E still applies to BOTH of them, if we're black and white on policies/guidelines alone. Blue Wagon (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not really, users must provide sources to prove the subject has had widespread coverage, 1 blog and 1 small paragraph in a newspaper isn't widespread coverage.--Otterathome (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't recall WP:NOTE stating a need for "widespread" coverage.. Blue Wagon (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a general guideline for all articles, this article doesn't meet any of the additional criteria of WP:BIO, whatever section you want to put it under.--Otterathome (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If I may quote WP:BIO: "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."; which indeed it has been recorded by a siginifigant news outlet (blog or print, it's still a news outlet), plus several second-hand sources. Clearly, if they've noted it, it's "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Furthermore, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject", which this article has. Further down, we have "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability", which this article has. And as an irrelevant sidenote, a Google search for "Boxxybabee" brings 707,000 hits, whereas "Chesley Sullenberger", as noted above, comes up to 414,000 hits. Just food for thought on notability. Blue Wagon (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please keep the WP:GHITS and other useless sources/arguments out, thanks. Note they are presumed to be notable, where as the additional criteria helps to establish if they are notable, and in this case, the subject fails on all levels.--Otterathome (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Like I noted, it was an irrelevant thought, not a part of my argument. Also, WP:AGF Blue Wagon (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (e/c)A more relevant search notability-wise would be a Google news search. "Boxxybabee" gets one hit, "Boxxy" gets 8. "Chesley Sullenberger" gets over 6,700. Mr.Z-man 18:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete gb2/b/. BJ^Talk 18:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Sounds more or less like your vote is influenced by WP:IDONTLIKEIT Blue Wagon (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Baileypalblue: The Meme aspect overrides the Bio aspect (i.e., I would agree with WP:BLP1E assessments if, for example, there were an article under her proper name discussing her as a person). Article, however, should be improved, as I'm sure it will be given time. Finally, original nom fails, as WP:RECENT is an opinion, and not a deletion policy. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 19:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Internet memes override BLP? That's a new one. Mr.Z-man 20:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We're in discussion of the Boxxy internet meme rather than Boxxy as a person... so I don't feel WP:BLP applies, but WP:WEB would. FlyingToaster 19:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Boxxy a person? Yes. Is she alive? I believe so. Just because the article isn't specifically a biography doesn't mean that BLP doesn't apply. In any case. WP:WEB is a notability guideline, BLP is a sourcing policy. You're comparing apples to oranges. Mr.Z-man 20:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as yet another non-notable evanescent 4chan fad. And to everyone saying "utterly strong keep" — get a sense of perspective, please. --Cyde Weys 20:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP SHE HAS 400000 ON GOOGLE AND IS STORMING YOUTUBE boxxy deserves to have a page =p — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.92.21 (talk)

• Restoring misplaced vote by IP. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Another WP:GHITS/WP:POPULARPAGE.--Otterathome (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'd say she qualifies as a notable internet meme.... although as a comment I'm just going to say after watching two of her videos she seems absolutely insane. --Pstanton (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - Boxxybabee is an important youtube and 4chan icon and really deserves her own page. Vileplume's Narcotics factory _{Wanna get high?} 22:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That sounds like original research/WP:LOCALFAME to me.--Otterathome (talk) 12:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just some kid rambling on. "So bad its good" does not apply. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per WP:BIO, WP:BLP, WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:V Ijanderson (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Certainly a notable internet meme that has a had profound impact on the internet culture, including the culture of 4chan, which was recently a featured article. Yebellz (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC) — Yebellz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Subject may appear to be notable to those with a particular and very narrow range of experience, but clearly doesn't meet Wikipedia inclusion guidelines. Peacock (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - adequately covered by 4chan. PhilKnight (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Too many notable sources. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Mind adding them to the article? Mr.Z-man 03:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scroll up. There's a big list in the middle of this AFD. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, and they are mostly red links. So obviously not notable.--Otterathome (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Those ones are already in the article. None of them are reliable sources, and most are blatantly inappropriate for a BLP, except for the Guardian blog (which barely qualifies). Mr.Z-man 14:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There seems to be a consensus that The Guardian source is ok, however there is lack of agreement regarding the other sources. In all seriousness, I don't think we should use a source that uses a phrase such as 'batshit crazy' in the title, especially in a BLP. The Metro source appears to get its basic facts wrong. I fail to see how anyone can believe the bannerblog is a reliable source. I think the MadmoiZelle article is just about usable. This seems to imply the marketing facts articles are user generated, which is a shame, because they at least get their facts right. Overall, I don't consider that between The Guardian and MadmoiZelle there is significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - What's the difference between this page and Ellen Feiss' page? God, if this is non-notable, you may as well delete 2/3 of Wikipedia. 78.32.228.17 (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? In any case, Ellen Feiss has several real news articles written about her, Boxxy has only blogs. Mr.Z-man 05:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per nominator and WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:V. The majority of the news sources are hardly reliable. The flavour of the month doesn't qualify for an article. Bloody inclusionists. If this is deleted, I also vote that we salt the page, as unless she suddenly does something notable the article will not meet WP:BIO and I can see stuff cropping up about this for years to come. Matty (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Well about the one event stuff, well Boxxy wasn't just a single event, but several. Her videos being made, people responding, more videos she made, then stuff on 4chan, then the 4chan DDoS. So it's a couple events. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A few days ago I was trying to figure out who boxxy was. I hadn't been paying attention, but I had heard the name enough to look her up. I was disappointed at the lack of information on wikipedia. The page had been deleted at that time, and even as I looked through previous versions, the page hadn't really been allowed to grow. Wikipedia is my go to source for any and all information, whether it's important information or not. I was disappointed that feelings about a person/personality got in the way of the distribution of information. That is why we're here, isn't it? Whether you like her or not, her channel has almost 29,000 subscribers and is the #1 most subscribed channel this month on youtube. Flash in the pan or not, she is notable enough to drive curiosity, which should be enough reason to keep the page up. Annoyance should not be a viable excuse for censorship.Wiseblueberry (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:POPULARPAGE + WP:USEFUL are not valid keep reasons.--Otterathome (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with Wiseblueberry that we should pay more attention to serving the interests of our readers than to parsing detailed notability guidelines. In response to Peripitus, I agree that Boxxy gained attention in large part because of the 4chan reaction, but that wasn't the exclusive source (I doubt 4chan generated all those YouTube views). In any event, packing this information into the 4chan article would be too much detail on one incident; better to have it as a separate article linked to from the 4chan article. JamesMLane t c 08:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. two 3rd party reliable sources. plenty of evidence of notability. Jessi1989 (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Evidently notable. The Guardian article is fine as a source. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If we have sources, then this isnt a BIG Problem. Its just one article, not like it matters that much anyway. Might as well get over it and Keep it. M.H.^{True Romance iS Dead} 14:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a comment, since I'm tired of arguing notability and whatnot.. Wikipedia was founded on the idea of "free access to the sum of all human knowledge", and since we 'know' of this topic and are having such a fun time discussing it's place in Wikipedia, it's clearly a part of 'human knowledge', to an extent. Again, just a comment. Blue Wagon (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So is what I had for lunch today (an Italian sub, corn chips, and Dr. Pepper). Its part of my knowledge, I'm a human, ergo, its human knowledge. If I had taken a picture of it and uploaded it to the internet, it would be verifiable too. (I should've taken a video and uploaded it to YouTube, then all I have to do is have people spam it on 4chan until they get mad, and my lunch gets an article!) Mr.Z-man 18:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "sum of all human knowledge" certainly has exceptions. You might want to familiarize yourself with previous AfD's. Quite a few articles have been deleted on the alleged basis that they were unsourced, and it's likely that such articles did have unsourced statements in them. These include General Mayhem and the infamous Gay Nigger Association of America article, which was deleted after its 18th nomination for deletion and had even been nominated to be a featured article in the past. I honestly think that such topics are notable enough for an article and that good sources could be found to build an article, albeit possibly a smaller one. (Look at the original copy of the GNAA article at [2].) However, I honestly think that deletion of articles such as these is the result of a vendetta by certain administrators and other figures within the Wikipedia community. Scootey (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the link. I went looking for the GNAA article a few months ago and didn't find it. --Boston (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This looks like it is going to be another one where people demand again and again and again to get it deleted, like the GNAA article (and a few other such examples). If the deletionists don't like the result, they'll just cry about it 17 times or more until they finally get lucky and have it all their way again rather than actually respect a decision (made 16 times before) and then finally jump on that and pretend that single 1/16+ rulings is somehow more important and valid. Tsk. No reasonable person would think this is right. Thank God they don't let the justice system work like that. Madness.--92.20.103.131 (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It fits WP:WEB criterium no.1 pretty solidly, and it's absolutely notable. I agree with who said that people claiming it's not notable simply don't know how (a large part of) the Internet works today. Two million hits in a few days are non notable? How many books, movies etc. do we list that have been read/seen by much less people in a much larger period of time? --Cyclopia (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 1 blog and a small paragraph in a newspaper? I don't think so.--Otterathome (talk) 08:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think the whole matter is deplorable, but its notable anyway. The Guardian article especially is a full editorially controlled feature article on it, and, along with the other sources that's enough. The picture should be deleted immediate per Do no harm. DGG (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  How can the image do any more harm than a picture of a teenage actress? BJ^Talk 23:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  There are more criteria involved than notability. In its current state, only of the sources is acceptable for use and nobody has been able to provide any more. One blog post is not enough to make an article with. Mr.Z-man 02:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what about the metro source? Jessi1989 (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per WP:BLP1E. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with much of the above that the article should be deleted as WP:BLP1E. If this is kept, however, I do strongly agree with DGG about deleting the image. seresin ( ¡? )  03:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's only 4channers talking about her, really. Ash link (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the meme is making the rounds at Fark/Totalfark now too, which is how I first heard of her. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but remove any unnecessary biography. There is no need for an article about Boxxy-the-person, there is every need for an article about "the Boxxy wars". This was a notable incident in internet culture and has been covered by multiple independent reliable sources. Kyz (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Got links to any of these sources? The ones that have been presented so far are insufficient. GlassCobra 16:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable internet meme, but yes, remove biographical information about the girl herself. Jumble Jumble (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The video seems like an adult pretending to be a child, like an acting exercise. I finally figured out that it was reminding me of Lily Tomlin playing her precocious child character "Edith Ann," complete with eye rolling and squirming [3]. Is this a character like Edith Ann, or is it supposed to be the adult in her normal mode of expression? That might make a difference in what guideline is applied, other than "meme," which is not always convincing, being almost by definition a transient phenomenon. Edison (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, it's a fad on 4chan, for better or worse. However Boxxy is reaching the popularity once possessed by lonelygirl, and the article is reliably sourced, so it's a keeper. 76.247.137.253 (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Unfortunately notable, even if silly. Rlendog (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Egh, another 4chan meme? List of "sources" debunked above; BLP concerns as noted by several as well. GlassCobra 22:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems to have received enough attention to warrant an article. Everyking (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notability from Guardian. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete; absolutely not notable in internet culture. The fact that the Guardian mention it means little because (with no disrespect meant) they're as clued up on internet culture as a few of the keep voters here. She'll be forgotten about in a month, easily. I won't object a redirect to 4chan but I will object adding content about her to the article, as I'd rather prefer it kept its FA status and didn't have random WP:RECENT-violating stuff added to it. Giggy (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was waiting for Giggy to say his piece, as I trust his judgement on 4chan-related material. If he says it's NN, I believe him. – iridescent 00:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So you know nothing about it and aren't even bothering to make your own opinion?--92.22.164.17 (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No; I think it should be deleted but if Giggy had found reasons to keep it, I have enough respect for his specialist knowledge to treat any keep arguments he would come up with seriously. Since even he doesn't have a reason to keep it, confirms my belief that a valid keep argument doesn't exist. – iridescent 16:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The arguments for keeping this seem fair to me. It is certainly notable and precedents have been set.--92.20.103.131 (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Conviced by the arguments for keeping it, since it wouldn't be the first of his kind to be kept as an article here. Dreamblack (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep BLP doesn't really apply if it's about a meme rather than a person and Guardian plus metro.co.uk alone guarantee notability. Btw has anyone tried looking for more sources?--Kopbhfreh (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)— Kopbhfreh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Strong delete - I honestly do not get the whole "the image should be deleted per 'do no harm'" comments, but this is a non-notable 4chan fad, something which often occurs due to the very nature of 4chan. The Grauniad are about as adept at percieving and writing about internet culture as Bush is at pub quizzes. This page has WP:RECENT and WP:BLP1E written all over it. — neuro^(talk) 18:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• He's a respected writer and the Guardian's technology correspondent. It still falls within his purview. I'd take opinion over most others. Similarly I'd consider Bush's opinions and thoughts on politics perfectly valid as someone who is clearly in a position to give expert opinion or write on the subject, whether you happened to disagree with his opinions or have a personal grudge against him or not.--92.22.164.17 (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only blog coverage referenced. --Peephole (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fadish crap not worth wasting time on. No evidence of lasting significance.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unencyclopedic rubbish. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just like the "world cycling's #1 model!", I'd say. Same goes for a lot of Wikipedia. Of course, it was never run as a print encyclopaedia anyway.--92.22.164.17 (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep After the 4chan incidents, it has become a part of Internet's history. Must be keep. Counter pistol (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has not made Internet history, it hasn't even been around for a month. That is not a reason to keep. Giggy (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - trivial episode that is not now notable (no reliable sources to indicate that) and is almost certain to be forgotten very quickly. Making three videos, I remind those voting "keep", generally should not entitle one to a place in an encyclopedia. We are, after all (or at least some of us strive to be), an encyclopedia, not tabloid trash. Fails WP:RS, WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E, etc., regardless of "the 4chan incidents". - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep An important article relative to other internet memes. It is an ongoing event for which I believe many people are interested. --Rishiboy (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your "belief" about what "interests" "many people" is irrelevant here. Show us the independent third-party sources demonstrating that, and then you'll have a leg to stand on. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this unnencyclopedic trivia. 4chan and other juveniles can play their reindeer games wherever they like, except here. Fails: WP:NOTE WP:RS WP:WEIGHT WP:RECENT WP:V.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Quite a bit of what I see here basically boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There are reliable sources on the subject: "How Boxxy brought the web to its knees", "Boxxy, or How A Teenage Girl May Destroy The Internet As We Know It Without Really Trying", "Foxy Boxxy : celle qui parle pour ne rien dire". Even looking at the titles of these articles, it is clear Boxxy is, whether we like or it or not, an Internet-wide phenomenon. I can see how WP:RECENT applies, and I understand the reasoning behind that argument. But the article has received 21,603 views in the past couple weeks. This is the kind of thing people come to Wikipedia to read about; the same can be said about articles such as Joe the Plumber or Lolcat. Thus, I'm inclined to IAR and ignore WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS, until we can determine if the subject will indeed become notable in the long-term, or if this is just a passing phase. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All three of the given sources are blogs, thus violating WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure about that third link for the obvious reasons, but the Guardian is most certainly not a blog. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you read it? It quite clearly says "Technology blog" several times and even has /blog/ in the URL. Mr.Z-man 18:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me know when your blog is printed in a newspaper and distributed to 1.36 million readers Kyz (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far, no one has been able to find any real news coverage, or anything better than a blog. The Guardian source is close, but as it stands, its basically the only source anyone has been able to find that could be considered reliable. RECENT and NOTNEWS aren't the only policies this doesn't meet. Other than the Manual of style, I'm not sure what polcies or guidelines this does meet. It sure fails WP:RS and WP:BLP pretty terribly. Lolcat had articles in Time magazine and the Wall Street Journal. The lolcat article alone has more than 3 times as many sources as Boxxy gets in a Google news search. Lolcat also doesn't have potential BLP issues. Joe the Plumber isn't an internet meme (a mainstream news meme?) so its not quite as comparable, but it still has plenty of available reliable sources. Mr.Z-man 17:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As previously noted, newspaper blogs qualify as reliable sources per policy, and the article has two of those, all that's required by notability guidelines. Baileypalblue (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• There's no reason we should have an article on this individual. Fifteen minutes of fame do not justify an article on an person who will pass from memory in another fifteen minutes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The Guardian and Metro are using the same article, so there is only one source. And the Guardian has published it on a section about internet curiosities. We should really wait until/if more good sources pick it up. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Guardian and Metro cites are two different articles, written by different authors -- is it possible you clicked on the same link twice, accidentally? Baileypalblue (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based upon the Guardian and Metro articles being reliable sources. Just because both describe themselves as blogs, it doesn't mean we have to treat them as such. I sometimes think there is a fashion to have something called a blog. "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." per WP:BLP. It seems that unfortunately many of the delete voters are not aware that blogs aren't immediately considered inappropriate to use as sources. It also seems that a number don't understand the notability isn't temporary. Adambro (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subject is notable, well-known (on the internet at least), and reported in news sources. Captain panda 21:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The Guardian source is the musings of an opinion columnist, which doesn't meet WP:RS#News organizations. The Metro source is for a section entitled "Stuff we found down the back of the internet", so I hardly think that meets the criteria for a news source! The rest seem to be blogs and so forth, so I'd have to say this article counts as unsourced and therefore doesn't meet BLP. Orpheus (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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