Talk:Junlper

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I noticed back when this was a controversial page that there was some information that was missing from the article that could potentially make Junlper more of a noteworthy individual. She was parodied by The Boys and Opera GX on a fake social media platform called V, see screenshot in Twitter/X post. A better source may be needed (I am having a bit of difficulty finding information on this two year old ad campaign now personally), but I thought this would help.

https://x.com/Dexerto/status/1709660100904792373 Nekroz of Mokey (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Delete the entire paragraph at the end of the "Suspension from Twitter" section beginning with: "Following the assassination of Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025...".

Not notable, only sources are now unavailable tweets, all of which fail WP:ABOUTSELF, subject is WP:BLP. "Multiple far-right accounts baselessly claimed..." is a specifically problematic, editorialized phrasing. MMK229 (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Nubzor [T][C] 15:51, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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)

@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)

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

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)

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)

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)

? 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)

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)

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

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)

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)