Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxxy
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
— User:Juliancolton, 16:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:RECENT||WP:RECENT||WP:NOTNEWS (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)