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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. j⚛e deckertalk 03:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boxxy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Boxxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:BLP1E. The current state of the article tries to have its cake and eat it too, by referring to 'Boxxy' as a character by which is created by the individual, trying to shy away from the BLP prospect. But the article does not describe merely the character, but the person who plays it as well. I believe that in this case, (and that the talk page signifies this), that this is a BLP article and therefore, it qualifies for WP:BLP1E deletion. The last afd resulted in a delete and it has been recreated since then. The sources in itself only describe Boxxy in the context of the viral video, and the majority of the sources in this article refer to it in this context as well. It must also be noted that 9/20 sources are Youtube videos. The individual person is only notable with regards to the 'Boxxy' internet meme, and therefore, cannot exist without the meme. Even if this article were to be split into two separate articles, one cannot be talked about without the other. This would place both the split articles into BLP categories and this nomination would still apply. I also note that due to the nature of this character and the resulting Internet counter-culture among other things, there may be single purpose accounts that register only to contribute to a 'keep' or a 'delete' !vote. I implore all individuals who !vote to carefully consider policy based arguments for both sides. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The previous AfD ran at the height of Boxxy's internet fame and determined at that time that she was not notable, despite coverage from the Guardian and the Globe and Mail. Five years later she's just another vlogger with no reliable coverage at all. WP:15MOF seems to apply here. Ivanvector (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and a comment: this AfD may attract canvassed socks but please remember to assume good faith. Ivanvector (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • plus a note: there is a concurrent AfD regarding Boxx - that article is in no way related to this one. Ivanvector (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources suggest she is at least marginally notable. Everyking (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources? Other than the two I mentioned they all seem to be either her own YouTube channel or blogs. Ivanvector (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is obvious here from a plethora of reliable sources. The BLP1E concern is misplaced. Notable fictional characters, e.g. Larry Bud Melman, Manny the Hippie, Naked Cowboy, S. K. Thoth, Chris Crocker, do not become non-notable simply because they are the product of a performer who is unknown outside that role. This article is a part, however minor, of Wikipedia's coverage of Internet culture, an encyclopedic subject. If we ignored all of these memes, we would have no coverage. Major news publications have seen fit to write articles entirely about the subject, which is what notability is all about. The earlier AfD was closed out of process and did not meet a consensus among the many Wikipedians who commented, but in any event the article and sourcing are substantially improved since then. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidemon, the sources primarily cover the individual's role in Boxxy's viral video and since the article mentions and makes claims about a biography of a living person, it is therefore considered to be a BLP and is subject to the policies and guidelines of that, including WP:BLP1E. As well, the argument you are invoking is the other stuff exists argument, and shouldn't be used as there is different criteria for each page and differing circumstances. If you don't feel an article is notable enough, you can nominate it for deletion. But please don't invoke the lack of deletion of another article to say that this one is notable. Tutelary (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Naw, my point is that you don't seem to understand BLP1E. It's not intended to preclude coverage of famous characters or actors in notable roles, that would be absurd. You seem to have OSE backwards as well, I'm pointing out the flaw in your argument, not trying to claim this article is better than other articles out there. Incidentally, it's poor form to barrage every single keep vote with a repeat of your argument. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's not, but the characters in which they're made have been persistent in their notability. This one has not, and has BLP implications. Additionally, I have not yet seen any evidence of any long term notability. Tutelary (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is a BLP and is therefore subject to WP:BLP1E as it makes claims about individual person's. It instructs that we are to avoid articles that just primarily relate to the individual who are only notable for event. Catherine is only described with credance to Boxxy, and maintains a very low profile individual out of that. An article about it is what WP:BLP1E specifically states to not have.Tutelary (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating your argument to every Keep !voter here won't help it be deleted you know .... Since your arguments been answered above I'm not going to bother replying to it!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rather, this Afd is a discussion on whether this article should be kept. The discussion cannot be furthered if there is no further inquiries other than the initial !vote. Tutelary (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Subject meets WP:ENT criteria 2. There are multiple reliable sources since 2009 detailing the subject, therefore demonstrating WP:SIGCOV. The fact that there is 9/20 YouTube sources isn't an issue; that's why we have WP:ABOUTSELF (and further, used in line with WP:PST). Note to the nom: bludgeoning the process does not assist your cause. —MelbourneStar☆talk 02:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one seems to be taking the criteria or the nomination to its point. This person fails WP:BLP1E, and is only notable in context of one viral video, the absolute reason that BLP1E policy was created in the first place. I would also like to say that you should discuss the content, not the editor making the content. Tutelary (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to respond to the policy/guideline points I have made, or just continue to repeat the same line in hope for a different outcome? —MelbourneStar☆talk 02:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have reliable sources to prove of said fanbase, I simply don't believe there is any lasting notability of this individual. The articles suffers from WP:RECENTISM and the sources demonstrate that. There have been no new recent reliable sources that has demonstrated any lasting notability of the subject. Tutelary (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The non-YouTube sources do give indication of notability and WP:ENT is met. Some users are under the impression that WP:BLP1E somehow "bans" articles about topics that became notable stemming from one event. It doesn't. It states very clearly it is meant for the privacy of "low profile" individuals who found themselves in the news (ie "Peoria man accidentally mows off own foot."). An internet character who's creator has done everything possible and succeeded to ensure it's high profile is needless to say not "low profile" by any standard. --Oakshade (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The notability that the subject has been given is only from this one incident. Could you somehow establish what lasting, long term notability this subject has other than for the viral videos? It was also established in the other Afd that TheGuardian and the Boston Globe and Mail were not sufficient enough sources to warrant a keep. Tutelary (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I love when noms admit the notability of a topic in their own statements ("The notability that the subject has been..."). Not only does WP:BLP1E permit articles on topics notable for "one event," but this is a series of videos, or "events" spanning years, not "one event." Coverage, like that of from AOL has been published years after the original video demonstrating lasting significance. "BLP" aren't magic letters one can summons to delete articles on notable topics. If anything in this case, I would honestly say KEEP per WP:BLP1E. --Oakshade (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are there reliable sources about the subject? Yes. But not enough to have granted a 'keep' conclusion on the old afd. The AOL only mentions the topic just in passing, in just one of the 100. It is generally said that when the article only mentions them in passing, it's not a sufficient resource, especially for a BLP. To be included on a list of 100 is not a claim of lasting notability, which is required per WP:BLP1E. Just because some news organizations have reported on it does not establish long term notability. See WP:NOTNEWS. Again, please focus on the content, rather than the editor at hand. Tutelary (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you're referring to the article "The 100 Most Iconic Internet Videos" in which there is only 100 of, which even you admit. This is 100 out of tens of millions. Again, you're making the case of keeping this article. And WP:GNG's example of "passing mention" is a "one sentence mention". The sources are far beyond the scope of "one sentence mention." The coverage of this person are not news reports like "sports scores" as what WP:NOTNEWS attempts to discourage. If you've like to change WP:BLP1E to be about non-"low profile" individuals, you need to make a case on its talk page, not invent your own definition is a single AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about general notability guideline. This is about WP:BLP1E. Tell me, what is the long term significance of the subject? Long term, what is she known for? One event? Btw, the AOL list listed her as #104, not even within the 100, and the editorial choice not to view millions or billions of hours of footage I think is reasonable. The person is a low profile individual, and has not done anything outside of the viral video to get noticed. The 'low profile individual' is what BLP1E explicitly says
  • If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.

Boxxy meets this criteria. Tutelary (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And with this I confirm KEEP per WP:BLP1E as this person is not "low profile" and has continued to garner coverage years later and thus has not remained "low profile." (that's cute to argue a point on GNG grounds - your "passing mention" argument - and then claim "This is not about general notability guideline." Having your cake and eating it too?) WP:BLP1E links to WP:LOWPROFILE which defines one who has received media attention without their consent or is a victim of "ambush journalism," which of course this character and person has not. The more you bring up WP:BLP1E, the more you're making a case for keeping this article.--Oakshade (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not cite WP:GNG for the basis of this afd. I cited WP:BLP1E, and the fact remains that there is no long term significance. How about I hold your feet to the fire and beseech of what you claim the long term notability of the subject is? Tutelary (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize you've mentioned "BLP1E" 13/14 times... Give up and accept the fact Boxxy's notable and consensus here says just that!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) You used the GNG argument "It is generally said that when the article only mentions them in passing, it's not a sufficient resource..." Notability is not temporary. That this character and person has received coverage years after their first video ("event" as you call it) further demonstrates lasting notability. Whether you accidentally argue with GNG or BLP1E (for the 15th or so time), you're only confirming the KEEP arguments per those guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I'm a user case. I wanted to know more and came to Wikipedia (where else?) to find it. Notability in the dark ages may have been selectively delivered by men on horseback, but things have changed. Googling gangnam style, harlem shake and leave britney alone lead to Wikipedia, so why shouldn't Boxxy? It's my frank opinion that suggesting this article should be deleted is nothing more than snobbery. Wikipedia is after all an internet resource, and thus coverage of internet phenomena (low or high browed) should feature prominently. And whether we like it (her) or not, she does feature prominently on the internet.Citation schmitation! It's utterly ridiculous to consider deletion on the grounds that she's not notable. If policy doesn't agree, the policy needs review. The girl has memes for goodness sake! And FYI; Overly Attached Girlfriend <-- I rest my case. fredgandt 01:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is purely other stuff exists argument and should not be invoked to demonstrate the lasting notability of this article. There are differing circumstances which cannot be compared. Gangnam Style was a national, well known song, and was the first video to reach 1 billion views on Youtube, as well as influencing culture in multiple events and propelling PSY to nationwide media attention. That's lasting significance, because it had a lasting effect on the culture. Chris Crocker, as well, did this, and instead has done multiple media attractions so as to not qualify for BLP1E:
  • Signing up for a pornographic film.
  • Having a song that hit #3 on iTunes Electric charts
  • Having "Me at the zoo" be purchased the rights by HBO Documentary Films
These demonstrate lasting significance to the subject other for than one event. Boxxy, currently does not. I have not seen the lasting significance on Boxxy, and dancing around other notability guidelines is a bit discouraged when BLP1E is what's being argued. It also sounds somewhat like the WP:ILIKEIT argument. Tutelary (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You LIKE quoting policies and guidelines don't ya?
Personally, I don't like any of the "internet celebrities" I mentioned, but they (or rather their existence is) are fascinating. The article in question is also pretty awful, and if kept (as it should be because the subject is notable as others have clearly shown) it could do with a clean-up, which is perhaps something you could do.
"Lasting effect on culture"? What exactly has that got to do with notability or verifiability?
I seriously think you're missing the point of Wikipedia, Wikis in general and the ideal of crowd sourced documentation. The fact is that even if WP policies and guidelines say "blah blah blah" (which most do), we can (or at least should be able to) think and act for ourselves. As I stated, I found the article as a user wanting to know more about the subject. I am part of this discussion because the information I was seeking has been somewhat pathetically marked for deletion by an editor who frankly seems a little trigger happy when it comes to deleting stuff, and if you get your way, others like me (the purpose of the Wiki is first and foremost to provide information for people seeking it, and not to serve it's own agenda) will be far harder pushed to find the information elsewhere.
Poorly referenced information about obscure subjects is better than nothing, and we have the templates to highlight where readers should take what they see with a pinch of salt. Instead of trying to fix Wikipedia, try and fix the articles. Find sources where missing. Add templates asking for clean-ups and expansion. Add to the project by building the repository.
Don't be that guy.
Some other policy, guideline, spewage to peruse: WP:PETTIFOG, WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:EDITDISC, and my personal favorite WP:PTG. Enjoy! fredgandt 00:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like it, but it's a necessity in debates about policy like this. The lasting effect on culture was referring to your WP:OSE argument that since PSY's Gangnam Style got an article, this should have one too. They are two separate situations with differing circumstances. Also, I would prefer that you not focus on the contributor, but rather on the content. It should not be about my editing patterns or anything of the sort. The argument that poorly sourced content is better than no content is not true in the case of WP:BLP, and the WP:GNG. Also, the notion that just because an article is useful or interesting is the WP:ILIKEIT argument, and shouldn't be regarded too highly. Last thing, I'm a lady. Tutelary (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Vacuous and pointless though this YouTube "celebrity" might be, there are numerous independent sources which focus on her as a primary subject. It must have been a slow news year. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Strong keep The page is terrible, as it is basically one sentence explaining what videos "boxxy" uploaded. After looking at CaptainSparklez's page, I feel like this article should be kept. Edit: After looking at WP:BLP1E, and WP:15MOF I decided that there is absolutely NO reason to delete. Just because it needs cleanup, doesn't mean it has to be deleted. this policy does not apply here, as there is more than one sentence about one video. WooHoo! • Talk to me! 23:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sorry, but WP:BLP1E can't possibly apply when the person has been releasing more videos for over six years. I hope to never see another Boxxy video, but the independent sources in the article show that this YouTube character is notable, and as the actress, now 22 years old, is continuing the act, any concerns about the phenomena being a flash in the pan are no longer valid. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my !vote to weak keep mostly per WP:SNOW but some editors here have made good arguments. I reaffirm that there are only two reliable sources cited, the rest are fanblogs but the volume lends further evidence of notability. My feeling is that Boxxy is notable for having posted some videos which led to a moderate disruption of 4chan, but that's it. The rest of the article is WP:FANCRUFT. Some editors here have suggested that notability is established because her videos get a lot of views. That statement is WP:SYNTHESIS - unless there's a source that notes explicitly that the videos are important for this reason, we can't make up that rationale. Simply uploading videos to YouTube is not notable at all - literally anybody can do it. That's YouTube's model, in fact. The links to those more recent videos and the discussion about them should be removed, per WP:IINFO. Also, why is the Discovery Digital Networks navbar included with her (real) name on it, but no mention of this whatsoever in the article? Ivanvector (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete with a big caveat. I'm a fan of this actress, which makes me biased, but it also makes me informed, and someone who has used the article. As I write this, Catie Wayne has just been flown to Costa Rica by the Discovery Digital Networks for something called "Sloth Week". They've started featuring her more prominently. Six months ago, she was uploading her own videos, and a year and a half ago, she had only uploaded a dozen videos total, which is less than her average week's output today. Last month, she was a panelist at a convention in San Francisco for fans of My Little Pony. To many of her fans, for Catie Wayne to be known for doing Boxxy is like Susan Sarendon being known for doing "Rocky Horror". Catie Wayne is not Boxxy. She is beautiful and intelligent, with amazing comic timing, and there will be a Catie Wayne article eventually. It's painful to say, but dropping the Boxxy page may be the necessary prerequisite.FelixRay (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC) — FelixRay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: if there is a point where Catie Wayne's career becomes notable separate from her character Boxxy, there could be a case for including a page on both, or more likely including a section on Boxxy within Catie Wayne's article. That's definitely not the case now. She is notable (and only marginally so) because she is Boxxy. Ivanvector (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Having familiarized myself with the notability guidlines, I now have to reluctantly agree. The notability guidelines strive for objectivity, and while I believe that focusing on Boxxy creates a distorted picture of Catie Wayne, the actual person, I can't prove that objectively based on what the world cares about. Time will quite possibly take care of this. FelixRay (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the nominator, I have already noticed problems with the particular sourcing on the article. For one, The Guardian's blog is still listed even though it's a blog, and therefore not reliable. This was mentioned in the old afd and accepted, but for some reason, it's still in the article. Second, there are two unsure sources that need addressing. Lastly, one link is dead (though dead link template can easily be applied) I'll mention this all in the talk after this afd, though I still do endorse deletion, for the reasons mentioned above and that I have argued. Tutelary (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspaper blogs are generally considered RS if they are subject to the newspaper's editorial oversight. I don't know if that's the case for this blog in particular; that would be a question for WP:RSN. I suspect it is, since the Guardian is regularly cited around here. Ivanvector (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Ivanvector said. News blogs from reliable sources are generally considered reliable sources. Just because a that source and its reporter are publishing in a blog format doesn't magically transform the otherwise reliable source into some teenager's Livejournal account. --Oakshade (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, that that blog is ultimately one author's opinions and has not been subject to the Guradian's ultimate editorial control. It is not reliable, and this was established in the old afd, as well. I beseech that you take a look at that. Tutelary (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're going back to a WP:GNG argument now. Opinion pieces are not discriminated against for being acceptable coverage as long as the coverage is from a reliable source. It could be a piece called "Boxxy is the Biggest Waste of Time Ever" and that would still be considered significant coverage. News blogs from major newspapers like The Guardian are always subject to editorial control and can be deleted or amended by editorial direction at any time. Even readers comments are subject to editorial oversight.--Oakshade (talk) 03:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not necessarily true. There are many tabloid-style "newspapers" which exert no control whatsoever over what gets written in them, but still gets passed off as news, and many more that would not withdraw a column but merely issue a retraction while keeping the original column intact. I'm sure the question of whether or not it's appropriate to use The Guardian columnists' musings in BLPs has been answered before, and there appears to have been a rough consensus in the previous AfD that the column referenced in this article was acceptable. Tutelary, if you disagree you could ask for an opinion at WP:RSN. Ivanvector (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boxxy_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137642443"