Talk:Junlper

Notability

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)

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

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

@~2026-70977, we already know which account she has previously edited under. 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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

|}

Notes

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)

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)

DanielRigal, either this page is on your watchlist (for what reason I could not imagine), or you are connected to this person in article directly.

You have consistently made overtly hostile comments to anyone who would stumble here and ask themselves why this article about 2 twitter posts is still not deleted yet.

I would ask you, seriously, what motivations you have behind this attitude and why you appear to have such an investment in this article, it serves nobody, and especially yourself, to pretend that all of this hostility and defensiveness comes simply from your love and desire to keep wikipedia maintained correctly.

In fact I find that sort of excuse very poor considering your hateful attitude. Redatlas (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Further, as a deletionist yourself you should recognize how silly all of this is. Surely if almost every new editor that comes here has to say something, then there is something to be said. Redatlas (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

The WP:ASPERSIONS toward Daniel are inappropriate here. If you want to make a notability argument, then make one based in notability policy. There is nothing wrong with keeping a contentious page on your watchlist, this is incredibly common for Wikipedia editors. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I concur strongly with what Redatlas here. Furthermore, there's no logical reason this article should exist. JonathanMRosenberg (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I hope you are not concurring with the entirely baseless personal attack they make against me?

I can't remember how this article came to be on my watchlist but by far the most likely explanation is that somebody vandalised some other article that was on my watchlist and I came to this one by checking their contribution history. That is the main way that I get lots of articles on related subjects on my watchlist, from reverting a vandal across several related articles.

Anyway, this article has survived AfD five times and it is time to stop bellyaching about it. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Majority of sources reference topic, not listed individual.

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)

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)

@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)

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)

(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)

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)

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.

Edit request to complete AfD nomination

Junlper has been listed at Articles for deletion (nomination), but it was protected, so it could not be tagged. Please add:

{{subst:afdx|5th|help=off}}

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. Flixxy0 (talk) 03:21, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

See my comment at the AFD nom . 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Already done Day Creature (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Political Views

@Wasianpower I feel like if the whole thing is about a twitter user, then her tweets aren't particularly undue? we can buff it out with other stuff, but I don't see why the fight about 9/11 currently is any less viral than the dick vein stuff. we can move it to the main tweets section if you prefer Reflord (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE indicates we should follow the due weight in our reliable sources. The "the fight about 9/11 currently is any less viral" because it hasn't been reported in any reliable secondary sources, see WP:PRIMARY. This is also a BLP article and we need to be careful about how we represent things, and it's not clear what policy basis this factoid has over any other random tweet about politics. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Are we sure she works for the Onion [NEW TO PROJECT]

Hi! I thought the experiences sections seemed a bit short and wanted to add more sources for each role, but I have kind of realized that I cant edit I think, which is fine, that goes away on November, but I also see that the sources for her work in the Onion are really flimsy.

There is a tweet by her, after she already was confirmed to have faked working for the NYT, and there is a single post cited in a queer magazine, titled "them," that is not in the Reliable/Perennial Sources page. Can anyone help me find a contribution she made to the Onion, it is usually visible on the top left of each article, it lists the author, or should we just remove this section until further notice? Please inform. ~2026-54251-66 (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Them is generally reliable for queer journalism, she is also credited on the Onion website . 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Can we add that about us page as a source? ~2026-54251-66 (talk) 23:30, 8 October 2026 (UTC)