Deletion of Noynoying

Comment: subject is multiply, reliably sourced to reputable news organizations that are independent of the topic. Article meets  and appears to have been improved since AfD was opened
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: Clearly passes  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  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 , Wikipedia: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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noynoying&oldid=482731738 this
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:BLP||WP:NPA)

Comment: Meets , but needs to clean up its sources.  Noynoying was recently featured on Wall Street Journal (http://blogs.wsj.com/searealtime/2012/03/20/noynoying-poses-challenge-to-philippine-leader/ 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: per Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Inclusion criteria, , and . 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 . 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.--&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER||WP:SOAPBOX||WP:BLP)

Comment: 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  says we don't have an article on it yet. Special:Contributions/79.123.75.171|79.123.75.171
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCRYSTAL)