Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shrek is love Shrek is life

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 Shrek_on_the_Internet#2012-present:_ShrekChan.2C_.22Shrek_is_love.2C_Shrek_is_life.22. Didn't really need a discussion but redirecting anyway (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shrek is love Shrek is life[edit]

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

Non-notable meme. I can't find reliable sources. —teb728 t c 07:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found some sourcing and apparently it's sort of used in relation to a Shrek subfandom. It might, might be worth merging somewhere, but that's debatable. I do know that this doesn't pass notability guidelines as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shrek_on_the_Internet#2012-present:_ShrekChan.2C_.22Shrek_is_love.2C_Shrek_is_life.22. This is already covered there fairly well, so there's little need for this to have its own article. We do already have the redirect Shrek is love, Shrek is life, but this could be a valid enough redirect for the most part. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect Already present in the Shrek on the Internet article as written above. In addition if you're fooled by the good appearance, know that above editor cleaned up this article with sources from that other article (needless work, though). --Mr. Magoo (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Tokyogirl79 - I declined the speedy deletion since it was at least significant enough to have some content written somewhere, but it doesn't demonstrate notability and more fits into an overall internet portrayal of Shrek. (Why am I spending my time on Wikipedia writing about Shrek?) Appable (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shrek on the Internet, not much content here, basically a fork of the latter.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Tokyogirl79. Notable enough to warrant mention somewhere in Wikipedia — indeed, it already was mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia — but not notable enough to need its own standalone article as an independent topic in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 23:56, 18 February 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.