Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junlper (5th nomination)

Junlper

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Junlper
• Articles for deletion/Junlper (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Junlper (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Junlper (4th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Junlper (5th nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Junlper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

Junlper: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

June Sternbach: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I simply do not believe Junlper is notable enough for a wikipedia page, most sources are referring to the "Snickers dick vein" or "Goblin mode", two popular tweets are not enough to warrant a Wikipedia page, the "other tweets" section reads more like a highlight reel rather than anything of note. Flixxy0 (talk) 03:21, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of People-related AfD discussions. Flixxy0 (talk) 03:21, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  Something I would also like to note is that previous discussions in the article's talk page seem to be met with passive-aggressiveness by the same few users Flixxy0 (talk) 03:23, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Moot discussion about eligibility of nom

• Comment - I'm not sure this is a valid AFD given that the page is under an Extended-Confirmed WP:CT/GG sanction and the nominating user is not extended confirmed. Also, are we really doing this again? 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  Flixxy0 (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  Comment Not entirely sure why my previous reply was blank so I shall repost it

  As I stated above, making WP:AFG penis joke and coining a term that was popular for a few months several years ago does not warrant a person having a wikipedia article, the same issues plague Catturd's page, as he also has done nothing notable aside from tweeting and being a bigot. An example of a notable twitter user would be Dril, as he has ~20 years of content and has been the source of many popular memes which are still popular to this day.

  I'm also pretty offended at the homophobia accusation, please WP:AFG Flixxy0 (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  What? This has nothing to do with the comment you're replying to, my objection was procedural and what homophobia accusation? 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  "I'm not sure this is a valid AFD given that the page is under an Extended-Confirmed WP:CT/GG sanction and the nominating user is not extended confirmed."

  This certainly reads as a homophobia accusation, as WP:CT/GG is gender and sexuality, and you noted that you don't believe this is a "valid" AFD as I'm not Extended-Confirmed, unless there is some other meaning I missed, I cannot read it as anything BUT an accusation of homophobia. Flixxy0 (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  What are you talking about?... aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  I literally do not know how I can be anymore clear

  User claims they do not think this is a valid AFD, cites WP:CT/GG as reason for believing it's not a valid AFD

  CT/GG is "Contentious topics/Gender and Sexuality"

  Implication is that I started the AFD because Junlper is queer (ie Homophobia) Flixxy0 (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  Do you not know what extended confirmed is on Wikipedia? That is the only explanation I can come up with for what you are saying here I'm completely lost otherwise. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  You're just ignoring the first half of your own sentence atp

  Have a nice night 👍 Flixxy0 (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Flixxy0, please remember to assume good faith, especially when someone is trying to explain policies to you that you don't understand. @Wasianpower was not being homophobic, and is correct that the article falls under WP:CT/GG. However, wasianpower, GG is not WP:ECR, that was just a "regular" CTOP protection, so there's no problem with Flixxy's participation here. Additionally, that CTOP protection has since expired, so I've lowered it and set an expiry. If vandalism becomes a problem on that article again, let me know and I'll raise it again. Cheers. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:25, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  Hi there, I believe you may have misread as I never accused Wasainpower of being homophobia, rather I pointed out how it seemed as though they were accusing me of homophobia.

  Have a good one! Flixxy0 (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  They were not accusing you of homophobia. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment - I would encourage the submitter to engage with Wikipedia's policies about WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG, or WP:NBIO. This article has been nominated 4 previous times, and arguments either way that don't meaningfully engage in discussions of sources used in the article or site policy will result in another time-wasting no-concensus closure. Yojo98 (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I believe the article falls under WP:1E, as most of the sources in the article are about either "Goblin mode" or the "Snickers dick vein", which I can see the possibility of Merging Junlper's article with the Goblin mode article, however I do not believe the "Snickers dick vein" warrants her having an article, as if we gave everyone who made a viral tweet an article, that would pretty make wikipedia an archive of "people who had a hit tweet" Flixxy0 (talk) 04:25, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

For added clarification, as Goblin mode was recognized as word of the year, I do believe that is notable, however creating a term does not make that person notable

See 6-7 Flixxy0 (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd also add that WP:1E was discussed in detail in both the 4th and 3rd deletion noms, as well as the reason for nominator withdrawal of the 1st nom. It's pretty clearly not an applicable case: goblin mode, the snickers tweet, and being suspended (which got SIGCOV) were all separated by a good deal of time.

I'd encourage you to read through the previous AfD noms and try to formulate why exactly those keeps / nc were wrong with some original thoughts or analysis. Repeating the same argument again is likely to get the same result as before (per my original comment) Yojo98 (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Junlper did not create the term goblin mode, it was recorded as far back as 2009.

She also did not create the snickers dick vein meme, as it was recorded as far back as 2009.

The twitter suspension is also not notable, as if we gave everyone who got suspended on twitter an article, that would mean half of wikipedia would just be suspended twitter users. Flixxy0 (talk) 05:03, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Given Asilvering's clarifying comment above about the sanctions applicable to the article, my above objection to the validity of the nomination is withdrawn, and I'll participate in this as normal. I believe there are two main points to address: whether the subject meets GNG, and whether the subject passes WP:1E. Above, the nominator clarifies their opposition as one relating to WP:1E rather than failing notability criteria, and so I will focus there. Given that the subject is a BLP, I will refer to the criteria of WP:BLP1E for simplification: Junlper does not fail any of the criteria of BLP1E, which requires all three criteria to apply. The criteria are:

1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. Here are WP:RS covering her in multiple different contexts: , , .
2. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. The subject hosts a podcast and publicly works for The Onion, and is not attempting to keep a low-profile.
3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. Per the nominator above, Goblin mode was recognized as word of the year, I do believe that is notable, and her role in it was well-documented.

On the basis of the nomination, I believe this is a keep, given the failures of the WP:1E argument. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment

I just want to further clarify as to why I do not believe Junlper's tweets warrant an article

I believe the article falls under WP:1E, as the "Snickers dick vein" is not exactly different from any other massively popular meme, 6-7 has it's own wikipedia page, however the child who originally did the hand motion associated with it only has a brief mention on the page.

Same with the puported creator of the Grimace Shake trend.

------------

While I will admit Goblin mode is notable for being word of the year, Junlper did not create nor necessarily popularize the term, as the term was recorded as far back as 2009 and was already quite popular in 2021 Flixxy0 (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Additional

Junlper also did not create the snickers dick vein meme, it was recorded as far back as 2009 and was a popular joke for many years. Flixxy0 (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

The snickers dick vein was already viral on twitter a few months previously because she made the joke Source

In other words, while she may have contributed to the popularity of some phrases, she did not create them, so this is basically the equivalent of giving someone who had a hit tweet a wikipedia page. Flixxy0 (talk) 05:19, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

The article never claims she invented the term, but that she popularized it and created vitality around it. This is supported by WP:SIGCOV in the rolling stones and buzzfeed interviews. Yojo98 (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe we should be considering Buzzfeed a legitimate source as for many, many years it was synonymous with the term 'Clickbait' Flixxy0 (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

This is not WP:BUZZFEED it is WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS, which is generally considered reliable. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

This is a WP:WAX situation. There's no standalone "6-7 Kid" article is either because nobody has decided to make one and/or he does not meet the notability guidelines, not because popularizing a meme is inherently insufficient to be notable. bnuuy ‖ 🐇💬 ‖ 08:02, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep. Clear WP:SIGCOV and not a Wikipedia:1EVENT situation. Whether or not the user in question was actually the first to use the phrase "goblin mode" or refer to a "Snickers dick vein" is irrelevant, what is relevant is the coverage of her in the media and while I understand that it is absurd that a twitter shitposter has received enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, she clearly has thanks to the coverage of her suspension by multiple outlets. bnuuy ‖ 🐇💬 ‖ 06:36, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep. @bnuuy has summed up my thoughts well. Whether or not this meme was already viral on Twitter is completely irrelevant, because that does not contribute to or detract from notability. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep per the absence of any good deletion rationale ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 07:57, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep and suggest a two year moratorium on renomination. It doesn't matter how many times this gets nominated, the facts remain the same. Notability is not temporary and the Reliable Sources are there to get her just over the line for notability. It was fair enough that the question got raised, maybe even that it got raised twice, but this is the fifth AfD (OK, fourth if you don't count the one that was withdrawn) and no new arguments are given for deletion. It's time to stop. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  There is a little extra coverage under her full name. This is newer and shows ongoing notability, albeit at a low level. I've added links for that to top. The back and forth with Ashley St. Clair is already covered in that article but I'll copy that here. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:42, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  From what I can see from previews there also appears to be some SigCov here: , but I'm struggling to find a way to access it. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep - I spot at least three events there with SIGCOV on her (Goblin mode, Snickers vein, and her banning). Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep and support at least a year+ moratorium on nom - Absence of any serious new deletion rational beyond Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:WAX. The facts haven't changed significantly since the last AfD a year ish ago and I don't anticipate them changing again anytime soon. Having this discussion frequently is a waste of everyone's time. Yojo98 (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the last discussion on this was over a year ago Flixxy0 (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, as I said. But nothing significant has changed, notability is not temporary, and none of the deletion arguments presented here are novel from any of the previous AfDs, where the article looked largely the same. Yojo98 (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Would there be any precedent for requiring talk page consensus before future nominations, to ensure any future nom is coming in with a new, valid argument for deletion? I'd also support a moratorium but having this be a yearly AFD does not seem like a worthwhile use of resources. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, LGBTQ+ studies, Politics, Internet, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 13 August 2026 (UTC)