Talk:Catherine Wayne

Biography Start‑class

	Biography portal 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 articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Internet culture Start‑class Mid‑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 articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-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

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 January 2009. The result of the discussion was delete.

This page was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on December 5, 2009. The result of the discussion was Keep.

External Link

You shall not work. --SwissAirForceSoldier (talk) 11:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boxxy (Internet phenomenon) → Boxxy — There are no other articles with the same title.--Karppinen (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This new article could have been written over the existing redirect except that the redirect is protected. Station1 (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support (as article creator). Boxxy currently redirects to List of YouTube personalities, which has a line item for Boxxy pointing to this article. The administrator who created and then protected the redirect after the old article was deleted did so without any discussion or process, and has not been editing for months. I asked User:MZMcBride, the admin who closed the deletion discussion, if they would unprotect the redirect[1] but so far no response. So a consensus to move the article would require an administrator to carry out. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxxy. This should, perhaps, be a deletion review, as this is essentially a recreated article. Powers ^T 16:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First edit summary states: "article created without reference to any prior version, based largely on sources that were not present at time of deletion". Station1 (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing the number of references, I think that article should have another chance. Snowman (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, she's for one gained enough fame for this article not to get speedily deleted (I think having your own article in The Guardian would be enough but she's gone further) and as far as that's concerned, there's no reason to have this article dabbed and needs to be moved as soon as it can. • GunMetal Angel 19:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superfluous disambiguation per wp:precise. ^walk victor falk^talk 13:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Needs work

This article needs to be completely redone. Grammar and style are terrible, and trivial facts are included while important ones are omitted. It also needs to be more clear about the fact that Svetlana and Boxxy are two of Catherine Wayne's characters and that the discussion between them was "for entertainment purposes only." I'll work on it when I get the chance, but I'm also doing some other wiki stuff at the moment. --SuperEditor (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article exist, and why is there a table of videos she has appeared in?

She is not significant enough to have her own Wikipedia page, and her individual videos are definitely not important enough to be chronicled. I feel like this is sexless netizens trying to feel close to a cute girl by making a page about her and including any minor detail they can to prolong the intimacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.124.190 (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice opinion, but the article passes notability as per the 17 sources that demonstrate her internet fame -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 14:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is just a guide and should not supersede common sense. This is fast becoming a shining example of "wikigroaning" because it clearly has no encyclopedic value. Sources can be found on anything, that doesn't mean that every subject of every Guardian editorial deserves its own encyclopedia article. 96.252.169.227 (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well until she loses all of her worldwide fans + reliable sources, and her article starts to dramitacally fumble all together, you can expect it to be deleted, but until then...it's here to stay as it does pass notability as well as basic policies. That's common sense for you. If you think other wise, nominate it for deletion by all means. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 04:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the IP user -- not that Boxxy doesn't deserve a page, but that sources do not alone make a subject notable or encyclopedic. Notability is generally established through a mosaic of evidence. And evidence for notability (like superfluous sourcing) can be balanced out by evidence against notability. My opinion (MelbourneStar, opinions are valid here since, again, notability cannot be determined by a litmus test -- rather by piecing together evidence that the community can use to determine consensus) is that Boxxy is notable. However, articles should be proportionate to the notability of the subject matter. Excessive length or amounts of detail for a person of minor notability would warrant pruning. For example the "notes" column of the table is something that I would consider excessive detail for a person of Boxxy's notability. ask123 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She'll be in a movie

http://www.facebook.com/catiexboxxy/posts/217159848322648 Check the data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.162.156.53 (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead external link

I just removed dead link to http://www.catiewayne.com/. The site comes up "This domain name expired on Dec 18 2011 05:20AM". Feel free to restore it if the page comes back. Alsee (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead external link update

The link to http://www.catiewayne.com/ should be reinstated because the domain name has been renewed and now will not expire until Dec 18 2012. 02:03, 07 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.81.133 (talk)

Notability:

Is Boxxy notable enough for her own article or should it be merged into another article? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such a discussion was had in 2009 (see link above) and rejected.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. If her article was deleted, then why was it remade? She's received even less coverage after returning to youtube. Her inclusion in the List of YouTube personalities is perfectly fine and all that's really needed. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The subject passes general notability guidelines, with substantial articles about it in the Globe, Guardian, and CNET. We do have quite a few articles about online personalities and the phenomena around them, it's part of Wikipedia's coverage of Internet culture. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She has received additional media coverage since the article was deleted in early 2009. For example The Globe and Mail, and CNET articles used as sources for this article (refs #3 and #5 at this moment) where both written after the deletion discussion ended (1 Feb '09). Jiiimbooh (talk) 05:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out above, notability is scalar. If her notability has decreased, then that should be reflected in the article. Remove fancruft -- that stuff shouldn't even be there in the first place. Yes, Boxxy is notable, but there are some details in this article that are interesting only to a small group of deeply loyal fans. ask123 (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still needs a lot of work

At the time being, this article hardly tells the reader anything useful, and what it tells, it does in odd places. The whole section named "history" starts in the middle of some flame war, when we first need to be introduced to the character and person and their claim to fame, which is somewhat done in the next section. Anyway, as is - regardless of notability issues - this hardly qualifies as an article at all. --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, would you care to help? Please propose or make some edits to improve! - Wikidemon (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would, if I knew anything about here - the reason I stumbled across this article is that I wanted to find out about stuff after seeing her mentioned somewhere else. --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be trimmed down a lot, there's a ton of stupid trivial nonsense in it. We don't need to document every single video she's made or talk about non-notable controversy surrounding them. -waywardhorizons (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trim the videography section

The purpose of the videography section is to document the most important videos in which Catie Wayne appears. It is not meant to be a complete list of every single video that she has appeared in. The purpose of the notes section is not to say "Published on XYZ's channel" next to each video. I am deleting the irrelevant entries from the section. --Joshua Issac (talk) 11:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ; for actors and actresses who have appeared in multiple films, do we "trim" their filmography list down? Of course not. Take a page from Nigahiga#Videography - have we trimmed that list too? No. "irrelevant entries" based on what? All the videos listed seem quite relevant to the subject in question - who's notable for making those videos. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 11:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant videos are those for which she is notable. These are mentioned in reliable, third-party sources. The list in the article that you linked to should also be removed, unless third-party references in reliable sources can be found to justify its inclusion. Policy dictates that "articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources" (emphasis mine). --Joshua Issac (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That policy is referring to the general nature of the article, rather the specific parts of it, or in particular the video section. If there's going to be a videography, atleast either mention that it's an incomplete list; a few notable examples - or don't have the list, at all - since they are already explained in the preceding sections. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 12:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The verifiability policy applies to all of the content in the article namespace. It has been stated in the Videography section for more than a year that the list only contains a selection of videos in which Boxxy appears. But it probably would be better to remove the list altogether, as you suggested. --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article is based on verifiable content - those videos are allowed to be used because although YouTube isn't a reliable source - her account(s), primary source, are allowed per WP:ABOUTSELF. Secondly, I'm quite sure there are multiple videos in which the subject has appeared in, that are not mentioned in this list; although this list should then say its incomplete - that, there, is your "selection". That being said, If you believe that videography section as a whole, should be removed - I won't object.

This makes no sense.

The following makes no sense. In 2010, Urlesque named Boxxy number 104 on its list of The 100 Most Iconic Internet Videos. Uhh, how can she be number 104 if the list only goes to 100? In fact, why does this girl even have a Wikipedia page? I think I'm going to nominate this article for deletion. It is just some girl who wants to be a actress. Aren't there millions of wanna be acctress' out there with YouTube videos? --98.87.89.184 (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]