Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jiafei

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 delete‎. Courcelles (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jiafei

Jiafei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No reliable sources for this apparent "trend". Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Internet, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete I can't find sources that confirm this in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in
  Douyin while trying to sell products through absurd advertisements. The iconic Jiafei image is a photoshop of K-Pop stars Wang Feifei and Meng Jia's faces from the girl group Miss A. Jiafei has become a symbol of Stan Twitter and FlopTok discourse, and parody accounts have been created that use sound effects and satirical concepts like kidnapping through IP addresses.

  ...

  Many of the bot accounts that migrated to TikTok from Douyin had usernames containing the name "Jiafei," which originally referred to the two Chinese K-Pop stars Meng Jia and Weng FeiFei of the group Miss A. The use of "Jiafei" to refer to both women in one name dates back to 2019 and 2020, before being appropriated by the bots.

  Meng Jia's Chinese name is 孟佳. Wang Feifei's Chinese name is 王霏霏. Combining the two names, "Jiafei" should be referred to in Chinese as 佳霏. I conducted a Google search for "佳霏" and could not find significant coverage in Chinese-language sources about this trend, which does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability. The Wikipedia article does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability because all of the sources in the article are unreliable, and I could not find even passing mentions in reliable sources about the subject.

  I am willing to reconsider my position if another editor finds significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject.

  Cunard (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete: Fails GNG,
  WP:NOTNEWS found nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Just routine pop culture mentions about a tick tok meme/spam advertising trend - not an encyclopedic topic.  // Timothy :: talk  13:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - simply not enough enduring, in-depth coverage to surmount either
  WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Could be a notable topic should reliable sourcing be found, but as things stand it's not.Rupples (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2023 (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.