Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Fake ABC

I see that some people think this article should be deleted because this term "Fake abc" seems to be a made-up term. That is not the reality. The truth is this term is already very popular. Here is one evidence of "Fake ABC" (in Chinese: 偽ABC) being widely used: A Cartoon of Fake ABC on Internet. You can see there are a lot of discussion and "likes". The aim of creating this wikipedia article is NOT to make this term popular.

Adding to that, the page Princess_sickness is also a term describing a cultural phenomenon in Hong Kong, its nature is similar to this page "Fake ABC". If you remove this page, then you may consider removing their page as well. However, you may want to know that "Fake ABC" is now a more popular term than "Princess sickness" in Hong Kong. Fake ABC is a more dominant culture.

Please re-consider before deleting. Boliradaka (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Boliradaka, I don't believe it is a made up term. I found this source in English which indicated to me that this page is not a hoax. However, it is not enough to have examples where the term is used. Please read the section that the article is nominated for deletion under (WP:NEO).
 * The most relevant sentence is: "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." I wasn't able to find any pages in English that fit this criteria. Maybe you can find some in Chinese and add them to the article? ParacusForward (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, ParacsForward. Here are some pages that I found. 鍾意ABC更鍾意扮ABC It is an article explaining why people like to pretend to be "ABC".

假ABC？那真的ABC就很高尚嗎？ this is another article related to the "Fake ABC"

假ABC this is a blog written by a Taiwanese, which mentioned the characteristics of Fake ABC. Boliradaka (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Boliradaka, Generally blogs are not acceptable sources on Wikipedia. See the page WP:USERGENERATED for more information. If you do find some sources that you think rise to the level that Wikipedia considers reliable I would encourage you to add them directly to the article.
 * Also, you should probably record your reasoning for opposing the deletion at . The page WP:GD has some discussion of how to do that in the "Discussion" section. I'm not sure if the editor closing the request for deletion will see this page or not. They will certainly see your comments there. ParacusForward (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)