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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jiong[edit]

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

Not notable and WP is not a dictionary of emoji/characters. Mostly though no evidence of notability, as there’s just one ref and that is a dead link, and unclear how good a ref that is anyway; the article implies it was on another topic. Given the hatnote it might make sense as an Dab page, in which case the character can be included with a link to wiktionary, e.g. wikt:囧. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the rise of Jiong from an obscure Chinese character to one of the most widely used emoticons is a notable and long-lasting phenomenon. The article needs better sourcing, but Jiong is far more notable than Duang, for example. It has also inspired some extremely popular films such as Lost in Thailand, whose Chinese title is Thai Jiong, and Lost in Hong Kong (Gang Jiong). -Zanhe (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it just should be expanded as Zanhe said. WP:WORDISSUBJECT states that it should include information on the social or historical significance of the term. This is very much doable. Ceosad (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment then where are the sources? Being used in a couple of film titles is not enough and without sources is original research. If it really is a notable and long-lasting phenomenon, especially an internet one, it should be easy to find sources.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately numerous China-related articles are poorly written and poorly sourced. I've just added three scholarly sources to the article. The huge phenomenon has been studied in quite a few English-language academic works. -Zanhe (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – plenty of Chinese language reliable sources, such as this article by Apple Daily and this by Southern Metropolis Daily. Try to search for native-language sources WP:BEFORE nominating for AfD. sst✈^(discuss) 02:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 02:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 02:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 02:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 02:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is a descriptive article about languages which is acceptable under WP:NOT. STSC (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2015 (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.