User:Draeco/Desk

bpt • desk • cites • philo • interiot • new AfD • SPATRA • WP:POLLS • WP:MEDCAB • WP:RFA • WP:RD/S, /L

WikiProject Medicine

Project Page
WPMED Newsletter and signup
Manual of style (medicine)
Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
List of participants
Popular pages
Assessment (Log)

How to help:
Article alerts and resources for editors
Articles for cleanup, deletion, and orphaned
Patrol recent changes and sort stubs
Requested articles

Categories:
Project
Articles by quality and importance

Projects

Start WP:DERM:REF citations from [1] as bojilov45@gmail.com
Suture and various techniques
dopamine
portal triad and the lobular model and acinar model of liver organization.

Translate

WP:SPATRAs and requests at Category:Articles needing translation from Spanish Wikipedia

Articles

I have particular pride/obsession/masochistic tendencies with several pages including:

Wisterias including American, Kentucky, and Chinese
Burkesville, KY and the Dale Hollow Reservoir
Filártiga v. Peña-Irala case
Zapatista general Genovevo de la O
UK's Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce and founder James Kennedy Patterson
List of breakdance moves including the 6-step, Swipe, Windmill, Flare, 1990, Suicide, Float, Spin, Freeze, Drop, Kick, and their common Template:Breakdance
ICRC and officials Jakob Kellenberger, Angelo Gnaedinger, and Pierre Kraehenbuehl
French and Stubs gauges and chart
Ko Pha Ngan and Haad Rin with its Full Moon Party.
University of Kentucky College of Medicine
Horserace (drinking game), hors de combat, cerci, and cornicle

Medicine

List of countries by quality of healthcare

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

There could be an article corresponding to this title, but I doubt it given that "quality of healthcare" is made of multiple factors and cannot be reasonably reduced to a single scalar value. In any case, this is not that article. The talk page shows lots of people unhappy with the existence of this article since several years. I tend to be on the inclusionist site, but this article is a net negative IMHO. cyclopia ^speak! 19:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. cyclopia ^speak! 19:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
At the very least this needs to be moved to an NPOV title like "OECD healthcare quality ranking". 20:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete - Fails WP:SOURCE Not sure what purpose this serves. It seems to focus on select cancers and cardiovascular disease. But even at that, it's limited and the lone source is iffy. — Maile (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:MEDRS. Also, it can be improved Mast303 (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Unless there is evidence that the list is WP:OR, I don't see why it needs to be deleted. Lorstaking (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Well, currently it is not a list of quality of healthcare, it is a series of medical outcomes that can or cannot have to do with healthcare quality.--cyclopia ^speak! 10:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
- Prima facie, this is an arbitrary collection of rankings by health outcomes presented as a measure of healthcare quality. Both the selection of input variables and the inference that this is meaningfully a reflection of healthcare quality constitute WP:ANALYSIS, and as such need to come from the sources in order to not be WP:Original research. The onus to provide evidence is on those who assert that this is not original research, not on those who assert that it is. It is always impossible to prove that sources do not exist, whereas proving that they do is trivially accomplished by simply pointing to them if they do indeed exist. TompaDompa (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Fraser Peck

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

Fails GNG - no significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources - and NPOL - "being an elected local official ... does not guarantee notability" Paul W (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Medicine, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Does not meet any of the criteria for WP:NPROF or WP:NPOL; insufficient reliable source coverage to meet WP:GNG. Jfire (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Professional Association of Internes and Residents of Ontario

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

Article fails to meet standards for notability as it has not received significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject SapphicVibes (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Thomas Dayspring

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

A perfectly respectable Clinical Assistant Professor with a long career who doesn't meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. Scopus shows 29 publication with an H-index of 13, which is modest for the field. Klbrain (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. hroest 15:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Umar Faruk Abdumajid

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

Couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV. Only seems to appear as a passing mention in the sources in the article and other very similar sources. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Nigeria. SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: clearly passes WP:BIO, WP:BLP. Worst case, should be merged into Federal Medical Centre, Daura. King ChristLike (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep: The head of a federal hospital meets WP:GNG. The cited sources are good to verify that. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't know how you can say that the head of a federal hospital meets GNG - there is absolutely nothing in the guideline that states that. I agree that the cited sources verify the fact that the subject was appointed the head of a federal medical centre. However, none of them contain the significant coverage of the subject (his name is only mentioned as one of a list of similar appointees) that is required by GNG. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

North Valley Hospital

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:N and there are limited WP:RS When doing my WP:BEFORE i only found WP:PRIMARY sources, signifying that this hospital does not deserve its own Wikipedia article. DankPedia (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Medicine, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Fails WP:NHOSPITAL. Charlie (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

OceanMD

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

The company does not meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG based on the references given. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing via indpendent, reliable sources. JSFarman (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, Medicine, Technology, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete: All sources I saw were either press releases or WP:ORGTRIV. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete' per failing WP:NCORP. Sources are PR or primary to the subject. Can't find any WP:RS. Patre23 (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete - not a single reliable source. If they paid for this promotion, they were robbed. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete There are not enough RSes to justify inclusion. Every company does not warrant its own page, they must meet the WP:GNG which this does not. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete: I wasn't able to find any trustworthy sources to support the content of this page. Additionally, it does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. Sethi752 (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Maryam Matar

AfDs for this article:

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

There is nothing to indicate that the subject is notable. The subject does not meet notability criteria for academics nor for government figures. The subject's most-senior position is having been an Undersecretary in the UAE Ministry of Health and having been involved in various UAE government agencies. All the coverage of the subject are puff pieces by outlets that are not independent of the UAE government and seek to promote the UAE government's health care system. There is no RS coverage of the subject. Thenightaway (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Biology, Medicine, and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Keep She meets WP:GNG with broad coverage in the news. Some of what I said in the 2022 discussion is still relevant:

(from 2022) The best sources are the two-page article in Emirates Woman from 2020[2] and The Arab Weekly.[3] Her work on genetic diseases has been covered in Gulf News,[4] the article by Sarah Townsend in The National (Abu Dhabi), and the article by Asma Ali Zain in The Khaleej Times.

In addition I have added a 2023 news article from the Gulf News (cited in the article, title From grit to glory: One woman’s mission to save lives and hearts) and other stories as an indication of on-going news coverage. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

These are propaganda outlets for the UAE government writing puff pieces for one of its government employees and for the UAE health care system. Thenightaway (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep unfortunately, there is a lack of freedom of press in the country and all local media is government owned. This is a massive problem with most articles under the project as things that would 100% be notable have their notability questioned due to the reliability of the sources. Yeah, Emirati newspapers aren't the best for their coverage and have questionable bias and puffery - however, this particular person does have extensive coverage by Emirati newspapers AND publications from outside. The Arab Weekly, Cambridge University Press, this book, and Trade Arabia. Not to mention, she's won and been nominated for a few awards. jolielover♥talk 15:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Either I get permission to stubify this page, or we delete it as WP:TNT. Underneath the wreckage of self-promotion and nonsense appears to be a notable person. Bearian (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep Meets WP:GNG; deletion is not cleanup. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

TATAA Biocenter

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

Relies almost entirely on primary sources. Unable to find any sources that show it meets WP:NCORP. The only secondary coverage is about an event - the former CEO being removed and suing a law firm that he says gave him bad counsel that led to his removal. But there’s no WP:INHERITORG from being associated with an event (and the event here does not even have sufficient enduring significance to qualify for a page under WP:Event in any case. I have a WP:COI as a paid consultant for WhiteHatWiki, which was hired by this company. I do not want to waste the time of volunteer editors to evaluate proposed corrections and edit requests on a page that does not qualify.) Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Biology, Medicine, and Sweden. Skynxnex (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete Sourcing is not particualrly strong. Notability is not clear. Does not seem to meet WP:NCORP. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment leaning keep - article definitely has an excessive detail problem, but they received some non-routine seeming coverage for their COVID-19 testing program (added 2 sources to article, although one isn't accessible w/o pressreader). Zzz plant (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment It appears that the nominator may have been influenced more by a perceived conflict of interest (COI) issue than by the actual question of notability. The company in question was founded by Mikael Kubista, and similar patterns have occurred before. For example, on Mikael Kubista's own Wikipedia page, there was repeated removal of content related to a legal dispute involving TATAA Biocenter by SPA @ArtChomsky which was settled by an admin and the argument to remove a fact related TATAA there was irrational. A similar issue seems to be happening here—there appears to be an effort, possibly coordinated behind the scenes, to suppress certain information by removing pages from Wikipedia. This raises concerns about the integrity of the platform’s commitment to neutrality and transparency.

I urge editors to review this situation carefully, with special attention to the quality and relevance of the sources cited, to ensure that content is evaluated fairly and not unduly influenced by COI concerns or efforts to obscure verifiable information.ManIxal (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Tasnim Jara

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

New politician, article fails both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Women. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

The article meets both WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Dr. Tasnim Jara is widely covered in independent, reliable sources, including international outlets such as BBC, ITV, Financial Times, France 24, and The Guardian, and Bangladeshi national dailies like The Daily Star, Dhaka Tribune, and The Business Standard.

She has over 12 million followers as a health content creator — the most for any Bangla-speaking medical communicator worldwide. She was officially recognized as a Vaccine Luminary by the UK government and has contributed to peer-reviewed journals such as JACC and Frontiers in Global Women’s Health.

She is also a senior NHS doctor, a political leader in Bangladesh's National Citizen Party.

The article is well-cited, and the subject clearly passes the notability threshold under both media and scholarly criteria. 103.57.120.14 (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Glad to see the article has been significantly expanded and improved since nomination. The author should consider removing the ref bombs. Please present three independent sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. The number of followers do not make someone notable automatically.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

News1, News2, News3 News4 Tasnim Jara is a 21st century female politician and this Wikipedia article can be published. I have given 4 independent national level news articles in native language. Here is the name of her political party and the previous mention that she is a popular person of Bangladesh as a doctor. I think it can be kept. Dv24mail (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep – The article meets the criteria set by WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. There are at least three independent, reliable, and non-trivial sources that provide substantial coverage of the subject:

The Daily Star – An article titled "Delivering reliable healthcare information in Bangla" discusses Dr. Jara's efforts in combating health misinformation and her role in co-founding Shohay Health, a platform aimed at providing accessible health information in Bangla.
ITV News (UK) – A national television segment focuses on her work addressing vaccine hesitancy.
France 24 – Features a detailed interview covering her political involvement and public engagement.

The article has been significantly improved and contains verifiable, policy-aligned sources. Further refinement can continue, but it meets inclusion standards. RiverQuill29 (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep Tasnim Jara Meet the criteria of WP:NPOL. This article is about a 21st-century Bangladeshi female politician. She has received numerous news coverage in her native language and is already well-known in Bangladesh as a physician in addition to her political credentials. Dv24mail (talk) 09:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment: There is a possibility that the article is very near to notability, but use of excessive source made it impossible to determine that. There are also several issues in the article. I can't vote unless the article is reorganized and restructured with reducing unnecessary sources. Mehedi Abedin 20:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I’ve now reduced the sources significantly and restructured the article. It should be much easier to assess notability now. Happy to take further suggestions. RiverQuill29 (talk) 03:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Draftify to address WP:CITEKILL and notability issues. Subject may be notable but references put forward don't appear to have WP:SIGCOV. Note interviews don't count towards GNG. Ideally references in Bangali (or any non-English reference) have the title translated into English. For this subject, if notability is NPOL, what political office was subject elected to? Not clear from article. Nnev66 (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
He is not an elected representative, but he has received national news coverage as a politician. He is the head of the central committee of a new political party formed in the 21st century. Dv24mail (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete - while party leaders are "politicians" in ordinary connotation, they do not automatically pass our standards. In the past seven months, we have deleted dozens of articles about political leaders and candidates. Bearian (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
He is not an elected representative, but he has received national news coverage as a politician. He is the head of the central committee of a new political party formed in the 21st century. Dv24mail (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
If subject was not elected to political office, articles almost always fail NPOL. If there’s significant coverage in independent reliable sources it could meet GNG, but as I noted above, it’s not clear that it does. Nnev66 (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
She did not get a party position after being elected, she got the responsibility while the position was established. She got independent news coverage as a political figure. As news coverage, she met the WP:GNG criteria. However, it can be considered as the central leader of the newly formed political party that is currently the most discussed in Bangladesh. I repeat, she was very well known in Bangladesh as a physician before entering political life. She studied at Oxford and received a foreign award. Dv24mail (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete: The article fails to meet the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Perhaps someone close to the person or the person themselves wrote it. When reading the article, it becomes clear that it was written for self-promotion. Somajyoti ✉ 16:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
You're right, I think so too. It seems like someone close to wrote something that was added hastily to the article. Dv24mail (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Draftify per @Nnev66. The person is notable, thus can be edited & improved to meet WP:GNG. Ahammed Saad (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Keep I'm changing my vote to keep, the article has been improved very well to meet WP:GNG Ahammed Saad (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Weak keep as an edge case (see sources I note in this paragraph), changing !vote from Draftify due to improvements to article and that it's not clear if any additional sources will emerge in the next six months. Nnev66 (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC) ~~Comment~~ There has been a lot of improvement to the article since I voted. I'm now leaning towards a weak keep as I think the following references [5], [6], [7] (assuming Bangla Outlook is a reliable source) support notability via WP:BASIC. Nnev66 (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete Having reviewed the available sources this is just WP:TOOSOON. She very clearly does not pass NPOL and while there is coverage about her neither her health or political related coverage would be enough for an article. As written it is very promotional. SportingFlyer T·C 07:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete : agree with SportingFlyer. Additionally, there are concerns regarding potential and possible use of multiple accounts to promote the subject. SRL1122 (talk) 07:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Soft Keep Easy Pass WP:GNG 103.89.26.28 (talk) 09:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Keep - I agree. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 07:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Draftify as per Nnev66. WP:TOOSOON. Mehedi Abedin 19:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Keep: She's a very popular content creator in Bangladesh per above. Country sources and International sources has also covered her very well. Her current role in NCP is likely to lead more notability in the future. WinKyaw (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Soft Keep – Maybe she will become popular in the near future ★Saadi ✉️ 12:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)★

@Saadi095 please read WP:CRYSTAL. Mehedi Abedin 20:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Executive Order on Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients

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

WP:NTRUMP. This is a direction to reduce prescription drug prices, which to me may only have an effect on pricing but not widespread medical field changes. Just because something is a direction to adjust prices to me doesn’t make it notable long-term. Kaito-san (talk/contribs) 15:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Medicine, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete Not every executive order needs a standalone article, even when covered in the news immediately after issuance. Prescription drug prices in the United States#History could be a place for a few sentences on this. Reywas92^Talk 17:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump per nom. मल्ल (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Draftify. Hot off the presses, and as मल्ल notes, there are more than a few pages on recent EOs, many with less coverage. Nothing is lost in draftifying this article with the intent of reevaluating in the near future when the effects thereof are more clear. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Wouldn't the fact that other EO articles have less coverage be an argument for keeping? Or are you saying those should go though AfD as well? Czarking0 (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I think a few could be worth a review. I'm of the belief that a lot of articles get rushed against the guidance of NOTNEWS. In the case of a very new piece of legislation of dubious impact, we can neither assume SUSTAINED nor larger notability will be met. Ideally, these articles are kept in the draft phase until a determination can be made either way. The Way I see it, this EO isn't clearly article material yet, but far from worth deleting outright. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

If it comes to that, EOs aren't legislation. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NTRUMP. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article, and so far this seems just standard and routine minor politics. Cambalachero (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
For WP:NTRUMP this is an essay and should not be used for determining consensus on AfD which should be based on guidelines. If it was you'd do well to note that the essay is about things Trump merely says rather than executive orders of the United States. Czarking0 (talk) 03:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep This is a huge deal. Democrats, especially Bernie Sanders, have been promising something like this for decades. This is going to be huge, and there will be so many news articles about it, and it will effect not just every person in the U.S., but also every developed country in the entire world. This is a big, big deal. Very notable. R5Y93mdf (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
@R5Y93mdf: Notability is not based on what you think about it. It's based on if it (quoting WP:N) has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. And per the section on sustained coverage (WP:SUSTAINED), Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. Please review the guidelines and provide a basis within the guidelines to justify your keep reply, or else it may be discounted/ignored per WP:NOTAVOTE. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Draftify, or an extremely week keep. Hard to say whether this is a big deal or Trump cruft. Draftifying is probably better than waiting until notability is more clear. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NTRUMP and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. — Maile (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Can you clarify which part of WP:NOTNEWS you think is relevant here? To me, this is clearly not OR, not Routine coverage, Who's Who or gossip. As for WP:NTRUMP this is an essay and should not be used for determining consensus on AfD which should be based on guidelines Czarking0 (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete - the executive order itself, as a subject, is unlikely to have any lasting notability. Anything that comes from it/partially because of it should be covered at an article about the outrageous state of prescription drug costs in the US. At the moment, I don't think this executive order even warrants a mention (it amounts to asking for help), but if it does in future, we can add mention of it then. Kingsif (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Keep, somewhat weakish, but still. The EO does not have any real teeth and is unlikely to have any substantive effect. However, it concerns a major policy topic in the U.S. of prescription drug prices, and there is bound to be continued discussion, and continued coverage, of why the EO didn't work. So at the very least one can reasonably confidently predict that there will be continued coverage of the EO itself. Nsk92 (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Strong keep. This is a big deal. Whether or not it faces legal challenges, the *potential* impact to prices in a country racked with healthcare problems high enough to cause notable social tension, and the expected 1 trillion dollar cost, make this a noteworthy issue. I would opine that it is at least as worthy as the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, which has an article. 85.131.184.138 (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
The "Big deal" can already be explained within Prescription drug prices in the United States. Does this executive order have enough standalone notability outside of the context of that article? I think not. Cambalachero (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
That article does not cover this event whatsoever. At least add it to that article before claiming it circumvents the need for this article. You know full well this event will be censored there also. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete. I'll summarize what I said on the talkpage of the article here. There is no possible way yet to say that this will have the WP:SUSTAINED coverage required for notability, and ultimately it's a big nothingburger - a directive to agencies to request companies apply a most-favored nation policy. In other words, it's a "pretty pretty please" that has zero enforcement mechanism, and any enforcement mechanism will almost certainly be ruled illegal for at least many cases (such as domestic company selling drugs produced domestically).
In summary, this is textbook WP:TRUMPCRUFT, and should not be allowed in articlespace. I highly, highly doubt that this will ever reach the level of notability needed for a standalone article. But if editors truly do think it may potentially be viable in the future, I would not be opposed to draftifying/userfying upon request. But the problem with that is that it could then be changed a bit, even when its notability has not changed, and moved back into mainspace, after which yet another AfD would be necessary to get the TRUMPCRUFT out of mainspace. Hence why I prefer just deleting it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Consensus should be built around guidelines not essays. Also this essay calls out articles on things Trump says. This is not something that Trump merely said but an EO of the United States. Czarking0 (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Maybe you missed it, but I linked directly to the part of the notability policy that applies. There are hundreds of executive orders, many of which get brief bursts of news coverage until the news/public realizes that they were just cruft that did literally nothing (or are overturned by courts). Brief bursts of news coverage do not make notability. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Yep the sustained is a good question here. I addressed that below I was too focused on the "In summary" in my previous comment. My bad Czarking0 (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
And my crystal ball is unfortunately broken, so I can't tell you whether there will be sustained coverage or not. My guess (which is simply a guess) is that there likely will not be. To your comment below, while the news cycle is much faster than it was a century ago, it's still not uncommon to see some news sources "lag" behind others, either because they're spending more time gathering background, or trying to get a specific interview, or just because they were too busy to post something about it. I would not consider it sustained coverage until it is talked about in ideally non-news sources, but potentially significant investigative features, months from now. That would be a shoe in for sustained coverage. But it's not going to be within the week of the order coming out. And probably not even a month of it coming out. Hence why I still support deletion, with the option for you (or another person) to request it be draftified/userfied with the understanding you will not move it back to mainspace unilaterally like you did the first time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep WP:N is not about the legality or impact of an article's subject. Notability is determined by sources. The existing sources demonstrate that the subject meets WP:GNG and googling shows that there are many additional RS. The only real question is if coverage will be sustained which it is obviously too early to tell. That the article discusses the first MFN pricing schema and the sources discuss the first EO on MFN pricing. These sources show that the first EO on MFN received sustained coverage. I expect that this one will as well. If consensus goes against keep please move into my user space as I will use this text for some of the other articles I work on. Czarking0 (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

As progress towards sustained I'll note that there are now 3 sources from May 12 and 3 from May 13. Czarking0 (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

May 14th now included as well Czarking0 (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete - This is giving undue focus to the minutiae of government, and to Executive Orders over the actual facts on the ground. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump. Just more run-of-the-mill Trumpcruft. Aydo h8^{[what have I done now?]} 23:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Right now, it's just news and a dream. There's not yet any coverage about real effects. Bearian (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
WP:GNG is not about future impact, it’s about present reliable, significant coverage. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Keept receiving international coverage in reliable sources example, it already affects the stock market and in depth analyses are published. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks I added one of these to the article. I was unable to access the others Czarking0 (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Keep This article meets WP:Notability guidelines. WP:NTRUMP is a WP:ESSAY and not a policy, and as such this discussion should be closed as improperly proposed. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
The Notability guideline says "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest" and "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." In other words: it takes a bit more than just a pair of days' woth of news coverage to have notability. NTRUMP simply expands upon the idea. Cambalachero (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
I think those are excuses because not a single Democrat did this. This executive order is talked about every day, not just because the Democratic Party lied about wanting to do it, and not just because it's Trump, but because it's a notable EO on a notable subject. Any coverage would necessarily be recent because this proposal was made shortly after the EO was created. Pretty dumb argument to say "short-term interest" on a recent event. Since your argument is based on policy not in this proposal (which is not based on any policy), you should be able to propose it separately so we can have a proper discussion on it. The admin corps should do the obvious thing and close this thinly-veiled partisan attempt at censoring inconvenient events. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 00:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 00:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

That is your opinion about the President's actions. One that you're entitled to, I'm sure, but it doesn't really say much about this proposal except that you don't like it. (The proposal clearly is based on a policy; it's based on WP:N.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete - why would this simply not be mentioned in an existing article - if at all. And how does the page title pass WP:COMMONNAME? Nfitz (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
It's now been renamed to Executive Order 14297 (by User:Ikhouvanjou14) which may resolve at least your naming concern. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 17:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NTRUMP and all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete and Merge to Prescription_drug_prices_in_the_United_States#History per Reywas92 and shrink to about one paragraph. Trump's INTENTIONS do not have lasting importance unless they get implemented. This expresses his INTENTION not (yet) a real accomplishment, and so should receive WP:DUE coverage based on that. If/when this does actually happen, then more can be added to that section, but the Executive Order itself won't do everything, he will need action from Congress, as most sources have noted. For comparison, we don't have articles on every bill PASSED by Congress (only the more important) ones, and we practically never have (I've seen some but most should be deleted) articles on pending or introduced bills.---Avatar317 ^(talk) 06:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Rare Disease Research

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

This is a small contract research organization that contributes a small part to large international trials run by others. I don't think that this would be evident to readers, which makes this article primarily promotional in nature. It would be helpful to have independent reliable sources that have the centre itself, rather than the trials to which it contributes, as the focus. I haven't been able to find any, and have not had any response to notability tagging since February. Klbrain (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Daegu Yangnyeongsi Festival

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

I found no significant coverage. A prod was removed in 2019 with an edit summary of "There are enough sources for this to go to AfD rather than PROD", but no sources were mentioned. SL93 (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Keep. Was there a proper WP:BEFORE in the native language? Searching for "대구약령시축제" gives plenty of enough sources in Korean per the 2019 de-PRODer. For example: there are academic papers [8] [9] [10] as well as news articles [11] [12] and an entry in the Doosan Encyclopedia [13].⁂CountHacker (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Clearly sufficient coverage in the Korean language. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Extensive and sustained coverage in Korean press, books about Korean festivals, etc. MarioGom (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Merge to Daegu#Festivals Seems like there is coverage in Korean publications. But I don't think enough for a stand alone article. May be better to move since no sources are in the article at the moment aside from official website. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Malwa College of Nursing

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated this in 2008, when it was kept with the reason "Degree-giving institution, ergo notable". Our standards have tightened since then, but nobody has improved the article. It is still promotional and substantially unsourced, reading e.g. "Malwa College of Nursing® was established in the year 2000". The article essentially serves as an extension of the college's website. In addition to WP:GNG, which still applies since the article cites no third-party coverage, deletion seems appropriate per WP:TNT and WP:V. Sandstein 05:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and India. Sandstein 05:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Medicine, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete 1 google news hit despite existing since 2000. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete Non notable subject. No coverage in reliable sources.

Afstromen (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete: No evidence of notability has emerged since the 2008 AfD, and the article remains unverifiable per WP:V. Chronos.Zx (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete private college, no substantial coverage, fails WP:NORG. --hroest 19:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Psychiatric Illness in General Practice

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

A page for a a research study from 1970, with notability supported by only one independent source. Pubmed shows 243 citations (over the course of 55 years), which suggests that it is influential, but insufficient for stand-alone notability. Klbrain (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Psychiatry. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Delete Individual papers are seldom notable, and if so, there should be extensive secondary coverage (not just citations by other studies). Plus, the article is almost devoid of content, just a summary of the abstract. Until secondary sources are found, this fails WP:GNG. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment not sure if this would qualify as SIGCOV but there is a short article on this in The Guardian which I found through newspapers.com. [14] Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Toxic encephalopathy

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

Very few WP:MEDRS, much of it is uncited, and the NINDS article (https://web.archive.org/web/20050720074428/http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/encephalopathy/encephalopathy.htm) that makes up a lot of the cited material in the article is actually not specific to toxic encephalopathy. I was going to remove all of the material that's cited to NINDS because it may not be accurate to toxic encephalopathy, but at that point it would be leaving the article as mostly uncited or cited to unreliable sources. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Keep and improve per WP:PRESERVE. There are a large number of scholarly sources available including a few that take a broad look at the subject rather than the more specific case studies etc. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Tianjin Fourth Central Hospital

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

Similar to the case of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine First Affiliated Hospital, this hospital also appears to fail WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Medicine, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Keep. There is no way a 95-year-old, 880-bed hospital affiliated to (possibly) the best medical university in China is not notable. I'm not going to do a proper source search just this moment, but I will provide references for my claims: [15][16]. Toadspike [Talk] 00:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Keep.This hospital is classified as a Grade A Tertiary Hospital, which means it is one of the highest-level hospitals officially accredited by the Chinese government. It is a non-profit public institution, not commercially operated, and treats tens of thousands of patients annually. Frankly speaking, one reason I focus on writing entries about large public hospitals is to help prevent misleading commercial promotion by smaller private hospitals. The references cited are based on the most authoritative and professional data sources available regarding local healthcare conditions. Has the proposer fulfilled their responsibility in reviewing this content seriously? Have they conducted any academic searches or reviewed relevant literature? I was able to retrieve numerous academic papers through Google Scholar. Or is the proposer simply speculating based on personal unfamiliarity? Such an attitude is neither friendly nor consistent with the rigor and responsibility that this task requires.--Amazingloong (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment: GTrang What's your assessment of the existing Chinese sources available in Google, Google News, Google Books, for example? Any other databases you searched? --MarioGom (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)