Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hongyuan Zha


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 水 12:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hongyuan Zha

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Created in apparent violation of the terms of use by known undeclared paid editor -- see He is notable, so someone without a coi might want to eventually write an article.  DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 05:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 05:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 05:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 05:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * DGG I can't get the link you made to work. What is Wikipedia policy for dealing with notable article subjects added by paid editors? FloridaArmy (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , I fixed the link. Paid editing is begrudgingly accepted, undisclosed paid editing is not. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  18:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I read the linked discussion. Is there a community consensus that creations of paid editors can be deleted (at least as long as significant editing by others hasn't taken place)? Surely this happens fairly often? I support Delete as a paid advertisement, even though the copy isn't overwhelmingly advertorial its creation is. But I would like to know what the established guidelines and precedents are when these subjects come up. I know I've voted to keep articles created by suspected paid editors if the articles were good and the subject was notable. If undisclosed paid editing isn't accepted then certainly it should be deleted. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not personally aware of a consensus specifically endorsing deletion of undisclosed paid articles that are notable, perhaps, , or would know. However, as the edits have been made in violation of wikipedia's terms of use, those edits can certainly be removed. If another unpaid editor endorses the edits, then it becomes a bit of a grey area, but that has not happened in this case. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  19:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It has become acceptable but not obligatory practice to delete articles by undeclared paid editors regardless of notability. Some admins do it at Speedy, on the assumption that the paid editor is almost certainly the sock of an earlier paid banned editor, though we cannot be certain which. And we can delete at AfD for any good reason that has consensus, including such things as NOT HERE, which means not here to contribute according to the rules, but in contempt of them.   I only have started doing it after others have been doing it unchallenged for many months. If the TOU mean anything, it means that contributions made in deliberate violation of them are not permitted.  DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess the counter argument is that we should do what makes the encyclopedia better and that an article created by a paod editor me be on a notable subject, well written, and well sourced. If an editor in good standing is willing to review it carefully and make sure it's neutrally written, includes and notable controversies, and is free from advertorial content that would be a reason for keep unless the point is to punish paid editors. But I don't think we are suppoaed to be pointy? In this case I support deletion. I think I already said that.. If so I stand by it. Thanks for the discussion and explanations. Helpful. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , as I said before, if another editor decides to review and 'endorse' the content, then the deletion argument becomes a grey area (though the content was still created in violation of the ToU, so really it should be deleted and rewritten anyway). At that point WP:B1G1F comes into effect though, which we should not be encouraging. Some amount of WP:POINTYness is necessary if we intend to have any control over undisclosed paid editing. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  02:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Clear violation of ToU, and must be made an example of. Delete but do not salt in case someone in the future, unconnected with the subject,  has the idea of creating a new one. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Made in violation of the ToU. No significant other authors. Don't salt but do not issue a WP:REFUND. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  02:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.