Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Johnson Yeh

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  keep. Salvio giuliano 12:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Johnson Yeh

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Shameless advertisement created by a paid editor, repeatedly submitted without addressing the many issues. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  22:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Due to tendentious resubmission. As it looks like the subject individual may be notable, this should not prejudice against an appropriate recreation of this draft by a good-faith editor with no conflict-of-interest, but this draft should be WP:TNT'd. silvia  (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)  (inquire within)  22:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep After Alalch E.'s changes, I believe that this draft is now suitable to be retained for potential further improvement. Whether or not it is fit to be moved to mainspace, or will ever be such, is a separate matter, but I no longer believe it should be deleted. Agree with SmokeyJoe that Nicoleahua should be blocked if they continue their tendentious behavior. silvia  (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)  (inquire within)  19:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: Looks notable. Many quality sources.  The draft needs major copy editing.  The author, has nicely declared that they are WP:PAID, and so they are not allowed to edit on this topic in mainspace and much use AfC to get the draft published.  Clearly they need help, or more care in reading the feedback.  One solution would be to WP:Stubify the draft.  Disagree with WP:TNT, it is far from unsalvageable, instead, WP:BLOCK Nicoleahua if they continue to disrupt AfC by tendentious resubmission with addressing the feedback.  SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - The protections of WP:NDRAFT should not apply to paid editors.--🌈WaltCip - (talk)  13:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Protections? PAID editors, which are not banned, not to be confused with UPEs, are told to use draftspace.  By declaring, you now want to treat them worse?  Why would any paid editor declare if that’s what happens? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ideally, we would do away with the Devil's bargain and simply not allow paid editors at all, as their interests directly conflict with Wikipedia's goals. But in any case, we at Wikipedia should not spare any patience for paid editors using draftspace to make and resubmit shoddy drafts. 🌈WaltCip - (talk)  13:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We can't realistically enforce a draconian stance, we need to strike a balance and then maintain that balance. —Alalch E. 18:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 13:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per SmokeyJoe. Indef the author if they continue to edit disruptively, but the draft could conceivably be improved, and if it isn't then G13 will deal with it.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Cleaned up with respect to possible reasons for deletion (by myself). —Alalch E. 17:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to comment on the likelihood this person is notable, they very well may be; I declined before because the current sources don't show it. But I really kind of hate to in any way reward paid editing, declared or not. Note to Johnson Yeh: Using paid editors is quite likely to put you on the watchlist of dozens of editors. If Nicholeahua told you they could get you a WP page, they were playing you. The page about you literally will attract hostile attention for years.  Valereee (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2023 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.