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 It's Showtime (variety show). Consensus is clearly that this isn't suitable as a separate article per lack of notability (but it would be nice if the sources mentioned by PogingJuan were addressed) and WP:NOTADICTIONARY, and the updates to the page apparently didn't convince people. There were suggestions of either redirecting or deleting, the precedents cited for redirecting carry the day here albeit narrowly. Not salting this unless it keeps being inappropriately recreated. Finally, the clapping craze may be notable by itself but the article as-is is more about the catchphrase. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Amending close as I accidentally redirected to the disambig. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply

Pak Ganern

Pak Ganern (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing more than a dictionary definition. Does not fall under any suitable speedy deletion criterion. Safiel ( talk) 00:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - WP:NOTADICTIONARY and "According to Urban Dictionary..." Meatsgains ( talk) 00:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Same as what Meatsgains mentioned. Nickrds09 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Why was this article not speedy deleted? This is more like a dictionary item. --- Tito Pao ( talk) 05:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply

  It's already been speedy-deleted twice, on August 15 and 22, see the log. wbm1058 ( talk) 12:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep- I'm trying to develop the article, to become an encyclopedic one. ~ Manila's Poging Juan 11:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Anyone is welcome to work on this in their user space or in draft space, then submit a technical request asking an administrator to install their encyclopedic article. wbm1058 ( talk) 13:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment. Don't worry. I'm serious about wiki editing, so I have improved/developed the article already. ~ Manila's Poging Juan 15:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nomination - WayKurat ( talk) 15:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete and WP:SALT per nom, as the article lacks encyclopedic purpose. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 23:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I'm not actually the creator of this article. When I saw this nominated-to-be-deleted article because it was like a dictionary item that was not allowed here in WP, I tried my best to make the article an encyclopedic one. So I think, in the article's state now, it must be kept. The article now shows the origin, uses, and other uses on popular culture (specifically Pak Ganern Challenge). The contents are strongly supported by primary news sources ( ABS-CBN News, GMA News, etc). The article really took under metamorphosis from being vandalized. So now, I think, you guys, must not reason "delete per nomination" because the article was developed. That's the reason we're here in the Wikipedia world, to develop its articles. Now, can you guys give me more specific reasons why it should be deleted, and we'll try to work about that. ~ Manila's Poging Juan 10:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Also, I think, the article must be semi-protected for an 'indefinite' time of period, so the one who vandalizes (the IP address users) would not be able to vandalize the article again. ~ Manila's Poging Juan 10:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete - the additions make it no more notable. The previous version that I tagged for deletion is in approximately the same condition as the current article. It was deleted and this is an almost immediate re-creation. Please salt   Velella   ^{Velella Talk}   12:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment. The catchphrase itself fails WP:NOTADICTIONARY, but the clapping game craze may be worth keeping, under Category:2010s fads and trends and Category:Internet memes. 1 2 3 4 If it can be rewritten to focus on the trendy game itself, with its definition and word origin being placed under an Etymology subsection instead, then i would vote to Keep the article.-- RioHondo ( talk) 13:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• PING @ Meatsgains, Nickrds09, Titopao, Wbm1058, Waykurat, and Yamaguchi先生: Notifying users who posted in this AfD prior to the relist. Safiel ( talk) 00:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• PING @ WayKurat: Notification to user that I messed up on the above ping. Safiel ( talk) 00:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• No change Despite the improvements to the article, I still do not see it as satisfying WP:GNG. Safiel ( talk) 00:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Most items in Category:Catchphrases redirect to the topic known for the catchphrase (their titles are shown in italics on the category page). Since this page seems to have resulted from recent programming on the variety show It's Showtime, perhaps this could redirect there, and this topic could get a brief mention in that article. – wbm1058 ( talk) 01:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• No change - Even after the expansion, the "catchphrase" still ins't quite notable enough. Meatsgains ( talk) 01:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Still delete. Very unencyclopedic. If you want to create an article about this catchphrase, might as well create another one for "Edi Wow" and all of those catchphrases popularized by Vice Ganda. - WayKurat ( talk) 02:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment: You should already vote once. Oripaypaykim (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply

It is apparent to me that this person was responding because they were pinged to reconsider. Likewise, I have no change of mind and continue to endorse deletion as per my earlier comments. Thank you Safiel for the notification. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 ( talk) 20:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete per above. It seems that at best it can be redirected to It's Showtime -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 09:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This is still not notable enough to warrant an article of its own. With regards to the pak ganern challenge it can just be mentioned in the It's Showtime page. -- Nickrds09 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete there really doesn't seem to be enough for an article here. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete This term doesn't even have a concrete definition to be in a dictionary, let alone to have it's own wikipedia article. Jpogi ( talk) 00:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC) reply

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.