Talk:Junlper

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

No consensus, 17 January 2025, see discussion.
Keep, 16 September 2024, see discussion.
Void, 11 October 2023, see discussion.
Withdrawn, 10 October 2023, see discussion.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 6 October 2023 by reviewer Tagishsimon (talk · contribs).

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Internet culture Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Wisconsin Low‑importance

	Wisconsin portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies: Person

	LGBTQ portal This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
	This article is supported by the LGBTQ+ Person task force.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them.

The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:

This page is protected. You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

JunLpermode (talk · contribs) (https://twitter.com/CantEverDie/status/1748186270222700732)

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q1: Why does this article exist, when there are other bigger Twitter accounts that don't have articles?

A1: Wikipedia has a set of policies to determine whether a topic is notable enough for an article, the most general of which concerns the extent of coverage in reliable sources. They have nothing to do with perceived prominence, and even less to do with follower count. Theoretically, an account could have no followers, but still have a Wikipedia article if it received enough good coverage. If there's some other social media account you think meets these requirements, you're also welcome to create it yourself!

Q2: Can you please delete this article?

A2: There are several processes through which articles can be deleted on Wikipedia. The only one this article is currently eligible for is via an articles for deletion (AFD) nomination. This article has previously been nominated for deletion via AFD four times (1, 2, 3, 4), none of which reached a consensus to delete. The most recent deletion nomination ended without a consensus. Anyone is free to re-nominate the article for deletion, though the admin who closed the most recent deletion discussion requested a one-year moratorium on deletion nominations for this article. Also, if you have been sent to this article to seek its deletion by a post on Twitter/X or another social media site, please be aware of Wikipedia's policies on canvassing.

Q3: Can you add more coverage about her posts on Bluesky?

A3: We use reliable sources to source content for articles, and Junlper's Bluesky postings have not received significant coverage yet. If you have a source, please feel free to add it or suggest it on the talk page so we can expand the coverage of her posting there!

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived 2 or more at a time by if there are more than 5.

This is the lowest I’ve seen Wikipedia administratiors go in my years of being on this site.

This page has no dignity, no significance. It’s talking about “snickers dick veins” and “goblin mode” in relation to a moderately sized at best “shitposting” account. What are we even doing here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sussywussy (talk • contribs)

"Wikipedia administrators" didn't make this page, and the 30+ sources would indicate it has more than "no significance". We get it, you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. glman (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A good half of the sources in question: Twitter posts Sussywussy (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the FAQ. As far as Twitter/Bsky posts go, most of these fall under WP:ABOUTSELF. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I count 7 out of 34 being social media (twitter or bluesky). If that's a good half I dread to think what a bad half would be. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every so often people come here to complain "I never heard of her" and I think "Yeah, but you found this article somehow? Funny that..." --DanielRigal (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It may have something to do with the fact that people reach this article specifically because the person it talks about is so irrelevant. Vamlov (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary mentions Administrators yet I don't see what they have to do with this. Doug Weller talk 09:52, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a literal who, whose only claim to fame is a banal hoax about snickers and a term nobody uses. Pipkin Pippa doesn't have a page and if I made one it would (rightfully) be deleted despite having more subscribers than Junlper has followers The fastest was (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested to know why there has been an upswing in people complaining about this article. Can you tell us what drew your attention to it? (To be clear, I'm not suggesting that you have done anything wrong. I just want to know why this is showing up on people's radar all of a sudden.) DanielRigal (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not OP but I saw a post or two up on Twitter over the weekend about "how is this an article", both of which got a bit of traction. I'd wager a strong guess as to that being why. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:37, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It got a bit popular on Twitter due to being a possible notability. Also due to the person being considered a "lolcow" on Twitter many though it was a self insert. While it does not seem to be the case, it does seem to be a notability The fastest was (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To save a lot of pointless arguing and to clamp down on promotional fluff, Wikipedia editors outsource the decision about what articles should exist. Instead of pointless arguments among ourselves ("Yes, this article should exist", "No, it shouldn't"), articles are kept if the topic is "notable" (defined at WP:N). The result is that articles are kept if independent and reliable sources have reported the topic. Arguments then center around the kinds of sources and exactly how many are needed. Johnuniq (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this a thing?

I've gone to restaurants where the head chef had more notability than this person. ~2026-61315 (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the FAQ. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The FAQ fails to answer his response. Simply lacking followers doesn't mean an account can't be on Wikipedia if it's notable enough but Juniper has neither a large enough follower account to warrant it nor is known enough outside of a small sub-community which you happen to be apart of. Vamlov (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Vamlov, literally the first line of the FAQ: Wikipedia has a set of policies to determine whether a topic is notable enough for an article, the most general of which concerns the extent of coverage in reliable sources (emphasis added). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:52, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cakelot1 The FAQ is poorly written and answers 3 questions. It's also buried in an incorrect area and the links you keep posting to it do not lead there. Redatlas (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's also buried in an incorrect area (emphasis added): Not as far as I can see (It's in an {{FAQ}} banner with the other talk page banners, which is the standard place). the links you keep posting to it do not lead there: The only place I can see that I've directly linked to it is the section directly bellow this one and on both occasions the link resolves to the correct page (Talk:Junlper/FAQ). I suppose it may be some problem on mobile[?] The FAQ is poorly written: you're welcome to edit it for clarity if you wish (although in the comment you're responding to I did excerpt and highlight the point which dealt with the question that was asked). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Vamlov which small subcommunity is that? Doug Weller talk 09:54, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Pointless time-wasting. Already covered by the FAQ at the top of this page.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This person has less than 200k followers on Twitter and is a writer for the onion. This hardly qualifies as notable OnHereAlot (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the FAQ. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This page is clearly written by the subject itself. ~2026-70977 (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-70977, we already know which account she has previously edited under.^[a] I'm wondering, therefore, which of the major authors of the article (viewable here) you are accusing here of being a WP:SOCK (which would get them blocked). And if you have no actual evidence, perhaps try to Assume good faith. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:25, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, being a niche Twitter microceleb shouldn't warrant you getting an article.

I'm not even sure why articles based on social media accounts are even allowed, most of them don't have any staying cultural relevance and won't be remembered 10 years from now. Flixxy0 (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Flixxy0, As has been previously suggested you could read the FAQ or the most recent AFD. But to be clear we don't keep articles based on how mainstream or niche the subject is or how many followers they have, but on coverage in reliable sources. As can be seen at the last AFD whether we have enough coverage can be disputed, but the discussion didn't come to a conclusion one way or another. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 16:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you're aware but the FAQ is just a redirect to the wiki article so I can't exactly read it.

But also, The page on Nautica Malone's suicide was deleted because it didn't have enough reputable sources nor would it be relevant in 10 years, both of which are issues that plague Junlper's page Flixxy0 (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Flixxy0 I specifically linked you to the sub-page for the FAQ (Talk:Junlper/FAQ). Regarding The page on Nautica Malone's suicide was deleted because it didn't have enough reputable sources: yes that's what we're saying here, we delete articles based on reputable sources being available (WP:GNG). We've had 4 AFDs auguring about this article's sources and haven't thus far come to a consensus to delete based on that. Perhaps a 5th would, but if it is going to to be WP:CANVASSED liked the previous ones it's probably going to end "no consensus" again. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 17:20, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

we’ve had like four AfDs on this and not one has had a consensus to delete, can we please stop rehashing this every time there’s a “omg how does this article even exist!1!?!!??1?!?” post on Twitter ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:33, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ She confirmed that when she said that this image from User:JunLpermode was uploaded by her here

Real name usage

This article uses "Junlper" more than her real name, compared to other similar articles such as Phillip Buchanan (Catturd) and Paul Dochney (Dril). (see also articles on Youtubers) Is it warranted to change most mentions of "Junlper" to "Sternbach"? GarethBaloney (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah if they're arguing this person has an notability based on sources, we should be using the real name. JonathanMRosenberg (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is not, by itself, a persuasive argument any more than it would be to suggest that we should update our Elton John article to refer to him as Reg Dwight throughout just because that is his real name. What would make the difference would be if the sources shifted to using her real name more. (Not that it is relevant here, but I would expect both Catturd and Dril to be similar in this respect.) DanielRigal (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

? You just scolded me for bringing up other users as an example of an argument. So why bring up Catturd and Dril?

You seem very defensive of this person. I don't think that Wikipedia should host fanpages for very niche internet celebrities who have small but very dedictaed fanbases. That seems to violate the purpose of an encyclopedia. JonathanMRosenberg (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let me make this clear. This page is for discussing the article, which you can do if you want to. If you have a problem with Wikipedia at a more general level then please either drop it or take it to a more appropriate page. If you have a problem with Junlper herself then please keep that off Wikipedia. If you are just trying to start an argument then please don't. You had your say on the AfD. It wasn't persuasive. If you think this article is a waste of time then it would be more productive, and probably more enjoyable, for you to find one that is more to your tastes and work on that instead. It doesn't sound like there is anything for you here. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Doug Weller talk 09:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the majority voted to remove this page during the AfD, and it was overruled by the admins. Whether the argument was persuasive or not is subjective, but the fact that the majority of people on and off Wikipedia find its existence ridiculous is not. JonathanMRosenberg (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If any uninvolved Administrator (or anybody else) wants to use their corrupt, evil and extremely scary powers to roll this nonsense up... DanielRigal (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Majority of sources reference topic, not listed individual.

We don't cast aspersions. Use WP:SPI if there is evidence of sockpuppetry. Use WP:AFD if there is a belief that the article should be deleted. Continuing against that advice would indicate a WP:NOTHERE approach. Johnuniq (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Many of the references used in this article are discussing the 2 events that are used to prop up the notability requirement for this individual.

Should it not be that we have simply the 2 articles for these 2 events rather than a page that allows for lots of autobiographical inserts. (reads alot like an autobiographical article; 4 accounts monopolize discussions here and pretend to have authority over article - smells like sockpuppet) Redatlas (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Go file an SPI if you want to. I've got popcorn. But seriously though, don't. You should not make accusations of sockpuppetry without evidence and the admins have got enough genuine SPI reports to deal with without people adding bogus ones. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielRigal I'm not sure why you bothered replying honestly. A complete non-statement with overtly defensive posturing. Redatlas (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So you think you can make baseless accusations but you are surprised when people reply to them to tell you that they are baseless? If you think you have evidence of sockpuppetry (which you don't) then file an SPI. If you know that you don't have evidence of sockpupetry, or even reason for suspicion, then please pack it in with the baseless acusations. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well you are making unsubstantiated claims of socking based on ??? Vibes? That you don't like the article? Hardly assuming good faith. As DanielRigal says if you do have evidence WP:SPI is that way. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:19, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I hate this article, I think it shouldn't exist because of weak sources, and I also hate Junlper's political views. At the same time, please WP:AGF. I know most of the editors you're talking about and they are definitely not sockpuppets. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1] She confirmed that when she said that this image from User:JunLpermode was uploaded by her here

[a]