Deletion of Boxxy

Comment: per Otterathome and Chasingsol,  per , and for failing 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:BIO)

Comment: Quite a bit of what I see here basically boils down to . There ''are'' reliable sources on the subject: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/jan/20/internet "How Boxxy brought the web to its knees", http://theridiculant.metro.co.uk/2009/01/boxxy-or-how-a-teenage-girl-may-destroy-the-internet-as-we-know-it-without-really-trying.html "Boxxy, or How A Teenage Girl May Destroy The Internet As We Know It Without Really Trying", http://www.madmoizelle.com/actu/actu_foxy-boxxy-celle-qui-parle-pour-ne-rien-dire_2009-01-21.html "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  applies, and I understand the reasoning behind that argument. But the article has received http://stats.grok.se/en/200901/Boxxy 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  and , until we can determine if the subject will indeed become notable in the long-term, or if this is just a passing phase. &ndash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:RECENT||WP:RECENT||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: I have looked at  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: 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 .   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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:BLP1E||WP:BLP)

Comment: per Baileypalblue: The Meme aspect overrides the Bio aspect (i.e., I would agree with  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  is an opinion, and not a deletion policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:RECENT)

Comment: Meets both  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:GNG)

Comment: 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  and  written all over it. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENT||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: The 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  it doesn't deserver a page of it's own at the moment
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E)

Comment: The Guardian source is the musings of an opinion columnist, which doesn't meet #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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: 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 . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: It fits  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: per nom and per , , #NEWS, 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BLP||WP:NOT||WP:V)

Comment: per nominator and #NEWS and . 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  and I can see stuff cropping up about this for years to come
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:V||WP:BIO)

Comment: Yet another |flash-in-the-pan "internet celebrity
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: 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: , , #NEWS, , and as I said in the deletion review, it is a perfect violation of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BLP||WP:NOT||WP:V||WP:1E)