The premise of the article was that an commercial advertisment on television became a meme (internet little mikey story), although essentially through a BBC radio station. The article was SPd and went mad, then went through Afd (NC) was blocked from editing for 3 weeks and then the advert ended. During the time various UK taboild newspapers had discovered the identity of the boy (along with a respected broadsheet South African newspaper). The article lasted 8 weeks before I named the boy. (although another picture was added at a later stage).

My own thoughts on the subject ran: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Frosties_Kid#What_is_this_article_abou...

"His existence and 50,000 internet blogs wanting the poor kid dead is just too much for Wikipedia. The advert is ephemeral and fluttered its last public airing on TV 6 weeks ago. Ephemera has a place, but a biog of a kid who looks like a future star of the South African Olympic team, shouldn't leave him with a moniker of being the Frosties Kid, 15 year old boys don't need that notoriety (or for that matter deserve a biog)."

I think the same views are mirrored in the current WP:BLP (although maybe not the ephemera bit).

Is it actually bad for wikipedians to use wikipedia a source and declaim unfounded blog and radio station stories? A bridge too far? Michael