Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jejemons

: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 redirect to Jejemon. Shimeru (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

=[[Jejemons]]=

:{{la|Jejemons}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jejemons}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Jejemons}})

Delete No evidence of notability. No reliable sources cited. (Only links are to Urbandictionary, facebook, and a YouTube video.) No reliable sources found on searching. All in all this seems to be a non-notable neologism. In addition, the article is rather like a dictionary entry, not encyclopedic. Note: PROD was removed without any explanation. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete as a neologism lacking any kind of notability. Note that the article Jejemon also exists. That article is better written than this one and includes a few references, but nothing to suggest that the notability of the subject is any more than temporary (WP:N states that notability cannot be temporary). I therefore recommend that BOTH articles should be included in this AfD. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Jejemon the article looks like a dictionary entry and looks like it cannot be improved, although it is a viable search item so redirect it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Redirect to Jejemon, the true article. - Gabby 18:46, 22 May 2010 (PST)
Redirect as Gabby had said. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Redirect Clearly, not a case of deletion. I was the editor who had proposed this article initially for deletion. Given Gabby's link, and the target article's referencing (which could be improved surely), this case seems like a strong redirect case than a deletion case. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 18:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

: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.