Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noynoying


 * 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   no consensus. There is at the very least no consensus that the topic is inappropriate for inclusion, so in accordance with our deletion policy, it is kept by default. I would like to remind contributors that disliking a topic is not a sufficient reason for deletion (WP:ILIKEIT), and that any deficiencies can be corrected through editing.  Sandstein  17:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Noynoying

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This so-called Internet meme has been around for approximate 4 days. There's nothing to indicate it will be anything more than a one-time event. Contested prod. ... disco spinster   talk  14:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Very annoying and out of the normal daily routine of today. ... disco spinster   talk  11:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)  The preceding comment was added by  and not  -- Whpq (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is this even an article? Better place for this on UrbanDictionary or KnowYourMeme. This should have been deleted yesterday. Ntlespino (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help,_my_article_got_nominated_for_deletion!#Some_articles_will_get_deleted_anyway "Some articles just don't belong in an encyclopedia, whether a paper-based one or an online one like Wikipedia. A local slang term which is not very notable from a worldwide view (or which is not covered in popular culture) is a candidate for the Urban Dictionary, not for Wikipedia." Ntlespino (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Some of the references in the article don't mention "Noynoying", and those that do all date from within the last few days. The same applies to what I have been able to find about "Noynoying" from a Google search. Maybe this will become notable, and if so we can have an article on it, but so far it looks like a mildly amusing publicity gimmick which, for all we know, may not be going to last. It may or may not be going to be notable, but WP:NOTCRYSTAL says we don't have an article on it yet. 79.123.75.171 (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

While I think an article for Noynoying will be added in the future (it will last in the minds of the people), I don't think it's notable enough yet for an article. It's not even a meme yet. How does a term become a meme? Three needed factors: (1) spread - it should be viral and spread all over, (2) mutation - it should become something else other than the original (the original is a word, so it should be added in pictures, video, etc), and (3) crossover: should cross over with other memes. A good example is the Chris Lao meme. In 24 hours, it had enough spread, mutation (there were parodies, and "Chris Lao" mutated to "I should have been informed"), and crossover to be considered a meme. Noynoying, not yet. Mvching (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Instead of a single article, I think we should add it to the entry for Pres. Aquino. Mvching (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Provisional keep. Meets WP:V, but needs to clean up its sources.  Noynoying was recently featured on Wall Street Journal (link) and expect more mainstream media to cover this subject.  The article should also not refer to "Noynoying" as a meme but rather as a neologism, like Tebowing.  There should also be a section on Malacanang's reaction (both by President Aquino and his spokespersons) about the matter. Starczamora (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Noynoying is more than just a meme. I support the call above to focus on neologism and other political terms such as Salamandering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.54.39 (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Hey, maybe in the future, but this just appears to be the latest internet blip. -- Whpq (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I also found this cached article from Manila Standard Today dated October 8, 2011, which could be the first documented use of the term "Noynoying" during the height of Typhoons Pedring and Quiel.

To quote: "The opposition called the government’s calamity response “insensitive, indifferent, and slow.” Palace ally House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. urged the President to visit the typhoon victims “to boost their morale.” The Internet was abuzz with a newly-coined word, “noynoying.” The word translates to “procrastinating,” members of a UP Diliman alumni social networking group say."

So we cannot quickly dismiss the article as a mere Internet blip, as it has been bubbling under the pop culture radar until recently. Starczamora (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's wasn't a cached from the original news article. You just wrote it up a few days ago. There was never a mention of the word in the original article. You invented it just a few days ago. You think you can fool the editors here??? 112.198.78.248 (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Carlo Linga
 * Please assume good faith when you comment on Wikipedia. Starczamora (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * O C'mon. Be truthful, you know that you just invented it last week and you want it to be in Wikipedia already? My children uses this extensively and I wouldn't want them to read this kind of crap. Please don't pollute Wikipedia, for our children's sake! Put it on your own personal blog, but not in Wikipedia, PLEASE!!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.78.248 (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is your burden to prove that I invented the word. Starczamora (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Not a meme, but something else. Mvching (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not just in the number of days that an entry should be based for deletion or not, but for the how widespread an impact it has to how-large a number of people have been exposed to it that should actually determine its significance and relevance. Noynoying -web searches in Microsoft Bing has already 4,780 results while Google has it at 206,000..., strikingly relevant for just a small amount of time. Not to mention the number of uses it already has in Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and other social networks. How relevant it is could also be shown by the number of mainstream media already aware of it, its meanings, and its uses... For ex.: From Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/searealtime/2012/03/20/noynoying-poses-challenge-to-philippine-leader/ From GulfNews.com: http://gulfnews.com/news/world/philippines/philippines-aquino-says-no-to-noynoying-1.997323 From ABS-CBN: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/-depth/03/20/12/what-you-need-know-about-noynoying From GMA7 News video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyq4FgDPr8w and many, many more... ---these are media giants in their own respect, cementing the idea of how widespread the exposition and amount of usage it is to a lot of people of a nation's number to say the least. Also, It just doesn't reside w/in the Internet, as it is now used on the streets, even farmers know its meanings here: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/03/19/12/luisita-farmers-go-noynoying -thus, "Noynoying" have a place here as a Wikipedia entry, for further reference within a more elaborate information channel such as Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyf1204 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article probably is news worthy but not Wikipedia worthy. The word was just invented by about a dozen people just last week. The media picking it up doesn't warrant it a place in Wikipedia


 * Provisional keep. As per the same rationale as Starczamora. With emphasis on the fact that unsourced materials must be removed ASAP.  Otherwise, I shift my vote to Delete.  Let's keep this up to NPOV standards, please. - Alternativity (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am currently in the process of creating a NPOV version of the article in my sandbox. Wish me luck.  Starczamora (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, it became like the jejemon phenomenon, only bigger. And also someone nominate this for DYK April Fools Day edition. – H T  D  01:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, jejemon was different. It's been probably over a year before that term was accepted. There's even some movies made with the same theme attesting to the word's popularity. But Noynoying was a week old and doesn't deserve to be in Wikipedia. Let's wait for at least 6 months before we put it in here.


 * It should be deleted. Noynoying is a term coined only by an activist(s) in Manila, the OVERALL population of the Philippines in which I am part of is not in any way going to agree that the president was doing nothing and thus the need to create a term based on his alias=Noynoy is needed, it is quite unfair. Leaving this article in wikipedia will make this public wikipedia a home for almost any editors on the planet to create an article just to support their unproven allegations.  Those activists are omnipresent.  Their works are only to critique the present leader, regardless of who they are, regardless of time, they are there in the streets to protest. The president of any state cannot control oil prices for common sense reasons, yet the activists wants the public to believe that the president has this ultimate power to lower prices not only of oil but of basic commodities.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.131.100.52 (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This entry should be deleted as it does not deserve to be in Wikipedia. The entry does not enlighten but only serve to ruin Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. This term was merely coined by propagandists/activists/rallyists in an effort to discredit the current president and to tarnish his image. As such, the term and meaning are just the opinions of a minority. It is not even truthful. It is only malicious gossip. It is propaganda. It may have plenty of coverage now, but only because of concerted campaigns. It is likely just as the others have said, an internet blip. For it to be worthy of the space in Wikipedia, it has to at least be truthful, and must stand the test of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notnot0128 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. But the articles cited by this source are as unreliable as any: They're mostly talking about people talking about this gimmick. That's not news to trust. Media covering this blip isn't a good standard to go by either--we must take in mind the editorial policies of Philippine news outlets. The leading media stations like to cover Twitter trending topics for news, for example. And this particular gimmick hasn't even trended, contrary to the claims of its supporters.

Speedy Delete. An article as cheap and unprofessional as this does not deserve to be in Wikipedia. Put this in UrbanDictionary instead. --PinoiBIGscientian (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Replies to the last 3 comments after my keep vote: Those are not valid deletion rationales. The appropriate policies here are WP:NN, WP:GNG, WP:NOT (and its companion essay Verifiability, not truth). The motives or the characters of those who started this are irrelevant; the question is, is this notable? Is this verifiable? With that said, everything that is not sourced should be removed; if the article truly is notable, there should be enough reliable sources to go around. If it isn't, but there's consensus that it is notable enough, the question should be which article should this be merged to. Presidency of Benigno Aquino III? – H  T  D  13:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Notability (events), WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and WP:SOAPBOX. Specifically: "A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)." The term itself was coined only a few days ago. Too soon to even judge if the term is notable (I've never even heard of it until now). No this is not at all like Jejemon. I am not fond of Noynoy, nor any of our presidents for that matter, but this should be treated as under the terms of WP:BLP. It's an attack page after all with a great deal of POV thrown in. We'd be unduly legitimizing it by having an article on it just a few days after it was coined by the perpetual activists in the NCR region. So, wait. If the term survives after, say, six months, then I have no objections to adding it. But right now, it stinks of propaganda.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  14:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. While I agree that the article started out as an attack page, my recent edits to the article made sure that it would not be so. Starczamora (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. This article DOES NOT deserve to be in Wikipedia. This kind of article should be in personal blog but not in Wikipedia. Please don't allow people to pollute Wikipedia with partisan and untruthful articles like this. My children uses this extensively and I wouldn't want them to read articles like this, which might distort their views on what is really happening in the country. 18:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Carlo Linga — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.78.248 (talk)


 * Provisional keep I may be living outside the Philippines, but I do follow the news back home, and it seems that the local media is making a big deal out of this "Noynoying" phenomenon. Add onto that international media coverage and I'm inclined to believe that this much more than just being a "meme".  However, while I must agree with Obsidian Soul that we should allow the term to run its course to ascertain whether or not it stands the test of time, I am not inclined to believe that time ought to be the sole determinant of whether or not an article warrants including in Wikipedia.  By the looks of it, it does pass the muster of the general notability guideline, regardless of who invented the term or not.  If there's a problem with association, we ought to clean it up rather than remove it hook, line and sinker: hence the provisional keep. (Also, on another note: I'm seeing an unusually high number of anonymous IPs who are behaving as if they're experienced Wikipedia editors.  Please start assuming good faith and allow the AfD to run its course.  Thanks.) --Sky Harbor (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. We can't just simply let this blip run its course--it's damaging to Wikipedia's credibility and capacity to sift through notable events, if that's allowed to happen. (On another note: The fascinating thing about Wikipedia is that its users are lent a voice. People who rely on Wikipedia have a right to be provided only the most credible, notable, and neutral information.)

What can readers get from this article? Some things are not appropriate in an encyclopedia. This is not your regular tabloid so please delete this article as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mafiaboy22 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Just because Wikipedia has content on something does not mean that it's a tabloid, and it does not mean that the article in question can't be rewritten in order to conform with the existing corpus of policy. Do understand that Wikipedia has a history of containing and maintaining "undesirable" content because the community believes that such content has an appropriate place on Wikipedia.  As far as I'm concerned, I'm not convinced by those who are voting "Delete" on the grounds of it being an "invention" of the so-called militant protesters of imperial Manila, or on the grounds of being "inappropriate": there needs to be a much stronger basis for deletion than that, especially since we risk making norms out of AfDs which could possibly threaten the ability of Wikipedia to fully reflect a country's corpus of information, in this case being information on political happenings in the Phillippines. --Sky Harbor (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I may be Filipino, but this does not deserve any place in Wikipedia despite the rants of certain anons. Issues have been raised about recentism and notability, and this runs afoul of them. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, for now at least, I have to vote delete. There has been coverage about this article from websites (The Philippine Star has it on its front page), but since the term is only a neologism, I don't know if we can save this. Yes there has been reliable sources, but they have only been around for the last four or five days, too soon I guess. This neologism is pretty much doomed to be a fad, as I can't see people remembering this by late April. I can also endorse a redirect to Noynoy Aquino under a Criticism section as an alternative. If more coverage comes up within the next few weeks, then it can be the next Jejemon and be recreated, and even become a DYK in time for April Fool's Day, but for now, delete. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep It should be a rule of thumb that if the deletion discussion of a subject on Wikipedia is the subject of news, then the subject is notable. If this subject is ephemeral it can be deleted later. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. But, again, the question is: Are Philippine news outlets as rigid in their editorial policies as they should be? The article you linked to is too much like the snake eating its own tail. An article about a discussion of a passing moniker borne of the minority's ire, an article which is then cited in the discussion and the article on the moniker being discussed. Something is inherently faulty in this kind of media coverage, and we'll make it worse if we let Wikipedia descend to these kinds of self-serving standards.

Propose we rephrase lede to "a protest gimmick in the form of a neologism", possible link to culture jamming
 * Comment I always thought that the article lede should read "a protest gimmick in the form of a neologism" rather than its present phrasing (simply "a neologism"). It's an actual incontrovertible (and I think reasonably neutral) fact, and think it would make the article clearer.  That's one of the conditions of my Provisional Keep vote, I suppose. The present phrasing is not neutral because it gives the impression that the phrase came out and became popular out of thin air. It did NOT. I'm going to wp:be bold and make the edit now, please undo it if arguments here provide an objective reason for rejecting that phrasing.   I am also linking "protest gimmick" to culture jamming, which may be a separate issue altogether. Folks might want to decide to undo THAT edit on a separate basis.  Let's make this article adhere to wp:NPOV, please. Thank you. - Alternativity (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion Possible This article is purposely made to create statement against the present leader of the country and is political in nature. It is not even popular to silent majority and therefore eligible for speedy deletion. Ric Padgett (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Popularity should not be used as a basis for eligibility, for it would make A LOT of articles here ineligible as well. The issues here are WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, which the article has extensively worked on. Besides, the "real" silent majority in the Philippines is the 60% of voters who did not choose Aquino to be their president in 2010, but I digress. Starczamora (talk) 08:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Local media websites as reliable sources I'd just like to note that the editors should exercise extreme caution in accepting news articles from local media websites in the Philippines as reliable source -- more often than not, they report as noteworthy anything Philippine-related that trended on twitter for a couple of hours, or reached a hundred thousand or so hits on youtube. Filipinos love being on the spotlight like that.

Right now there's even an article about how the discussion on this talk page supposedly shows that Wikipedia users are 'divided' over whether Noynoying should stay or not, complete with quotes from everyone else above this post. --112.203.73.230 (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * While there are clearly national characteristics involved, relying on suppositions of what they might be is a thin reed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

In my humble opinion I still see it as a name calling and not neutral in nature. Joefran4 (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See Chink, Golliwog, Self-hating Jew and many other name-calling articles, all of which earned a place in Wikipedia.Starczamora (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You guys do really have to understand what WP:NPOV means -- it means the why the article deals with the subject should be neutral; not whether the subject per se is neutral. That's the crux of contention on many of the delete votes, aside from the recentism aspect which is a valid rationale. 112.204.187.181 (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said in the Talk:Noynoying page, I agree that the act itself is not neutral, and I agree that the act is propagandist in nature. If I may raise a point of order, however, the question is whether the article is neutral, or is, recognizing the effort to slowly improve it, in the process of being made neutral. The act and the article referring to the act are two different things. I think the argument Joefran4 is using is better discussed as an issue of the act's Notability, not the article's Neutrality. - Alternativity (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep this article "noynoying" phenomenon is still in the air. and still not reaching its saturation point. It is slowly becoming a household term and always used in public places (used in replacement for waiting,watching, resting, etc.). It is also used synonimously with "slacker". I guess this "noynoying" will remain for a longer period of time. So, keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timbre Rock (talk • contribs) 16:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC) — Timbre Rock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. This kind of tone mirrors the article's non-neutrality, which simply cannot be modified no matter the edits. It's because the blip has no credible basis yet, no matter the editorialized sources people pull up. Goodness, even the pronunciation guide is suspect.

KEEP THIS ARTICLE! Reading these arguments for deletion of this article border on censorship, not not editing. Just because you don't like a term or its meaning has no bearing on whether it should be included in an encyclopedic library like Wikipedia. I just Googled noynoying and it returned 254,000+ items. To me, that warrants an entry here, regardless of whether you like the term or not. As a "culture-neutral" anthropologist, one of the things I've noticed about Wikipedia is a bias towards older generation, "Western", academic intellectual/social level cultural norms. It's very apparent here, where noynoying originated from a younger, Eastern, grass roots culture. It belongs here because it's what's emerging in the world and Wikipedia needs to reflect all points of view, not just Wikipedia's "elite" editorial contributors.

Regarding "recentism" (even that term and concept reflect the strong "academic" bias of Wikipedia), I believe the best interests of the worldwide public Wikipedia serves (vs. the interests of its editors) are to include emerging trends like this in Wikipedia, so Wikipedia isn't just a virtual replacement of stale hard copy encyclopedias that were always at least a year out of date. What's needed isn't to delete lots of articles up front; it's to have a more robust editorial process for keeping content fresh - a totally different point of view than keeping it within rigid academic guidelines. That process should be the one that archives (not deletes) articles that are no longer relevant. That way if emerging trends like noynoying don't continue, the article gets archived. Wake up to the possibilities of electronic media - it's about living in the NOW, not in the past! I know this entry will get flagged for deletion because it doesn't meet some rigid editorial guideline. I suggest one of the first places to get started on making Wikipedia more "fresh", unbiased, and relevant to today's world is your rigid editorial rules. They need to reflect multiple perspectives and catch up to what's emerging in the rest of the world. They are what have kept people like me from contributing to Wikipedia, financially and editorially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falcons-dream (talk • contribs)


 * Keep subject is multiply, reliably sourced to reputable news organizations that are independent of the topic. Article meets WP:V and appears to have been improved since AfD was opened. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I believe this article must be deleted as it violates lots of WP: conduct, policies & etc... such as personal attack, civility, harassment, and libelous threat. The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedic information source adhering to a neutral point of view. No Filipino in his/her right mind would believe that Noynoying has nothing to do with political propaganda thus it is not neutral. In fact, the word itself is derived from a political person's name which constitutes personal attack, incivility, and harassment. Therefore, such article should not be given a place in Wikipedia. Please note that I am only implying what was said in WP:Conduct, Policies and etc... It seems to be, in my understanding of your words, that we can violate WP:Rules & regulations simply because, it has been violated already. My word is final, I do not support violating Wiki Rules & Regulations. — Rammaumtalkstalk 04:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You are skewing the laws. NPA and Civility applies among Wikipedians in discussions.  NPOV only applies to articles, not the subject itself.  While the act of Noynoying is considered offensive to President Aquino and those who support him, the question being raised here--as other Wikipedians have pointed out--is whether the article about Noynoying is notable and whether it is written with verifiability, neutrality, and independent sourcing.  (As a Wikipedian who started the article about the Gucci Gang controversy, which was also nominated for almost the same grounds as Noynoying and was voted to keep, I know what I am talking about.) Starczamora (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly passes WP:GNG based on references, many of which are specifically about noynoying and are independent, reliable newspapers. Although we must tread carefully when dealing with articles on attacks on public figures, clearly the purpose of the article is to document the attack, rather than be an attack in itself. I read it over and I don't see any unsourced criticism of the figure (so no substantial WP:BLP issues) and quite a lot of it is dedicated to defenses against the attack, to the point where I don't think POV is an issue either. Counterarguments based on WP:NPA, Civility, etc. make no sense as those are policies for editor behavior, not article content. (Note: article does appear to have been improved substantially since deletion discussion was opened - at that time it looked like this.) Dcoetzee 04:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Informative, well-sourced article. Kudos to those objecting to it, for their creativity in finding and citing not-quite-on-point Wikipedia policies and guidelines that, to inexperienced Wikipedia editors, might appear relevant. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Might want to check this out: Wikipedia users divided on ‘Noynoying’ article--Coin945 (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Summarize, Merge & Redirect to Benigno Aquino III. Although the subject has received some media coverage perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON for the subject to pass WP:EFFECT. In the mean time the article can be summarized, created into a section regarding the present President of the Fifth Republic of the Philippines; if it later gets too large and the article reaches 100K per WP:TOOLONG it can be spun out, or if it does pass WP:GNG WP:EVENT & WP:EFFECT later the redirect can be recreated as an article again. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. That is what I am afraid of: merging the Noynoying article into that of President Aquino.  As you can see, it does not contain a section that criticizes President Aquino because it has been how should I call it..."guarded" by his supporters. Starczamora (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Response; although there are WP:BLP concerns, an article should also adhere to WP:NPOV and attempt to, in an unbias neutral way, incorporate criticism regarding a subject. No one owns an article and no article should be "guarded" in a manor if it only chooses to create a positive-POV towards the subject, for positive POV is still a POV push.
 * Perhaps you should bring up your concerns at WP:NPOVN, WP:BLPN, or at the talk page of President Aquino or WikiProject Tambayan.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

DELETE. This is the kind of article--which smacks of lack of neutrality, and cannot even come up with a handful of credible, facts-based sources--that threatens the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole.

One. This article's tone is sorely lacking in neutrality, regardless of the act. Past edits have futilely attempted to lend an objectiveness to its approach to no avail--there just aren't credible resources to be found. Majority of the sources cited in this article would not pass Wikipedia's non-neutrality standards--discourse borne by one heavily biased side finding its way in a broadsheet.

Which brings us to: The sources are either editorial fodder, or the slow-news-day so typical of news outfits of the Philippines--someone has already linked to the article about a "division" among Wikipedia users, an article that extensively quotes passages above this in attempt to depict discord among us. Obviously, just because it's been picked up by the media, it does not mean it warrants a place in Wikipedia's records. It's a passing craze, a publicity gimmick--note that the articles are from only a handful of days ago. It's a pile of leaves thrown at a wildly popular administration, unfortunately for this article's creator.

It's rabble-rousing. It's using Wikipedia as a propagandist tool. The very presence of this Wikipedia article, and the discussions it's spawned within this site, has been the subject of editorials--which this article then cites. That's a lot of self-service right there.

Bottomline: Wikipedia should never be used to make the childish act of sticking one's tongue out any easier--especially since its non-neutrality and lack of credible resources make the name-calling so obvious. We're trying to preserve the dignity of this open forum; articles like this are two steps backwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnjaCruz (talk • contribs) 01:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I will point out your arguments one by one:
 * 1) What lack of neutrality are you talking about? The Reception section included reactions from official spokesperson, from pundits favorable of Aquino, even President Aquino himself.
 * 2) Specifically cite the sources you claim to be lacking in credibility. I have used the website versions of widely-read publications in the Philippines, including Philippine Daily Inquirer, Manila Bulletin, Philippine Star, and Journal group of tabloids.
 * 3) Like all those who have voted for delete, you clearly dislike the Noynoying coverage to quote: It's a passing craze, a publicity gimmick--note that the articles are from only a handful of days ago. It's a pile of leaves thrown at a wildly popular administration, unfortunately for this article's creator. This statement smacks of WP:BIAS, so you cannot claim the article lacks in neutrality while your explanation is wanting of one.
 * 4) The Wikipedians in favor of keeping this, myself included, agree that while the act of Noynoying smacks of propaganda, that does not means we should not make an article about it. See the following articles about propaganda subjects that have found its way in Wikipedia.
 * 5) You obviously created a Wikipedia account solely for this discussion. May I suggest that you be WP:BOLD and contribute to the article Starczamora (talk) 07:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

DELETE. It is appropriate in Urban Dictionary and not in Wikipidia. The Noynoying article is a propaganda and is using Wikipidia to promote the annoying word to the public. The content is bias and contain messages encouraging people to do Noynoying. It is only a short term hype because Noynoy Aquino is the current Philippine president and once his term of office end, the meme will also end. I will suggest that the creator of the article compile the Noynoying news in their blogs or sites and not in Wikipidia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Towr (talk • contribs) 11:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. 1)  In what way the article about Noynoying, not the act, is written in a propaganda fashion?
 * 2) Your comment also reflects WP:BIAS, as you refer to Noynoying as "annoying."
 * 3) It does not contain a message that encourage people to do Noynoying.  The article featured an inforgraphic provided by Anakbayan, which is used on the article for the sole purpose of visual identification of what Noynoying poses look like, as well as how the group attempts to make it viral through social networks.
 * 4) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball as to declare whether Noynoying will disappear once Aquino leaves office.  That assumption did not apply to words like "Marcosian" and "Imeldific." Starczamora (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

KEEP Noynoying - It is a new term to describe inaction due to incapability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michallanjohnlo (talk • contribs) 15:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The sources aren't even complete. there are others instances of the meme way back than what is stated in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.110.84 (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please provide the sources to make the article complete. Thank you. Starczamora (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2012 (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.