Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxxy (3rd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam ^Sing! 00:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boxxy

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

second nomination, not durably notable, most of the article is announcements of self-published videos. This is the second nomination, several strong cases for deletion were made in 2009, and this article hasn't aged well in 6 years Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as an extremely notable meme / fictional character, Passes WP:EN & WP:GNG, Are we going to nominate Earth next?.... Also the delete !votes are utterly pointless in every sense of the word - WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion, Someone should close this as a clear Keep as it's not going to ever be deleted anytime this century. –Davey2010^Talk ~~13:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)~~ 21:53 22 February 2015[reply]

I've moved this to third nomination as 2nd nom already exists, so obviously this is a third nomination not second, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 13:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, its time of relevance has passed. Blah2 (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's really no need for this kind of thing. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pitch) @ 01:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Lol, those may be the most absurd "deletion" rationales I've seen all week. 'No need' for pokemon characters either, but here we are just the same. This topic has an immense amount of coverage in major newspapers like The Guardian, the only possible reason I can see to delete would be for "unambiguous advertising." the page, however, is nicely written. Earflaps (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The subject is significant in the Internet culture. 138.199.65.225 (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References in the article show more than enough notability per WP:GNG.--cyclopia ^speak! 21:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.