261:
by the place the person works for, but it comes to exactly the same motive and the same result.) When I listed he article for AfD, I said "He is notable, so someone without a coi might want to eventually write an article. " The point of "eventually", rather than immediately, is to balance the need to discourage UPE with the need to have a WP article on notable people.
231:
notifying others to change the writing style to give it a neutral tone." Hongyuan Zha entry is not perfect but it is a notable topic about a prominent figure in search queries and query execution that is likely of interest to many readers. The existence of the
Hongyuan Zha entry surely improves the Knowledge (XXG) project.
260:
It's not a personal vendetta, it's a very public effort by the volunteer editors here to remove the contamination of undeclared paid editing (UPE), editing which is practice is almost always highly promotional--for why else would someone pay for an article about themselves. (Sometime the UPE is hired
230:
Here is a quote from
Knowledge (XXG)'s Valid Reasons to delete page: "An article about a notable topic that is written like an advertisement, with a promotional tone and style, but which does qualify for an article (under WP:N, the Notability policy) should not be deleted, but should be marked {ad},
493:
there was clear support for deletion, so the only way this could be closed as anything other than Delete is if the argument for deletion (undisclosed paid editing) is considered to be very weak, and I don't think it is. In any case I don't think we're going to restore it at the request of an IP who
475:
that the TOU i.r.t. paid editing must be followed locally. If this is the case, we must also have an effective enforcement mechanism. We delete articles that are created by editors who are not allowed to post here (see G5) and I think this in analogous. We can determine by consensus the correct way
369:
It is not our usual practice to salt until the article is recreated at least once without improvements, and in most cases we wt for the third try. We usually assume good faith even here--we assume the subject has probably learned the hopeless of hiring an unethical paid editor. Most of the time,
399:
I domn't see any policy or RfC indicating consensus to deleted any edit by an UPE, and I would have !voted keep on this AfD, but the consensus was clear and could not have been closed in any other way. Do not salt, and there should be no prejudice against recreation by a non-COI editor. Salting a
249:
Articles written by undeclared paid editors are nowadays almost always deleted, unless some experienced responsible wikipedian is willing to rewrite them--which is nowadays very rare, because almost all responsible WPedians recognize that the only effective tool we have against paid editing is to
267:
And I do want to point out that none of the factors you mentioned by itself shows notability. The citations, however, show him an authority in his subject. There is also a problem with "In
January 1999, Zha was selected by Lawrence Berkeley National Lab to direct the NERSC as visiting research
173:
User:Ziyatexie was discovered to be a paid editor. Given the fact that this user was violating
Knowledge (XXG) policies, there is reason to believe the move to create the AfD of Hongyuan Zha was motivated by the personal vendetta, rather than a valid reason for deletion and an honest desire to
416:
Something seems off here. Guy doesn't even have a reasonable webpage and he is paying someone for a
Knowledge (XXG) article? Something seems off here. Nearly any academic with an interest in PR creates a personal website. His exists, but is really limited. I'd rather not see this salted.
306:
violations then to delete these edits seems reasonable to me (providing deletion is not disruptive). Considerations of notability may well be thought secondary, likewise whether promotional style might be editorially improved. So there was a good policy basis for the voting.
254:
dishonest), but potential customers will learn that it is not practical to try to get a WP article in that manner. Writing an article as a UPE is explicitly a violation of the Terms of Use, and no website should permit such deliberate and blatant defiance of the
341:
for the article to stick. Salting the title will put a stop to that. If any legitimate user later wants to write a high-quality article about the subject, they shouldn't have any problem doing it in draft space and getting the title unsalted.
472:
272:
is a very major position, and would shown notability, but he was only 6 years past his PhD at the time. There are similarly unsourced claims. The article would need to be rewritten, not restored.
337:. The problem with just deleting is that it's not enough. Whoever paid for the article can just find another person to create it for them. Maybe even a sock of the first UPE.
338:
264:
This is apparently your first edit on
Knowledge (XXG). If you have connection with the subject, you ought to declare it. If the connection is paid, you must declare it.
156:
48:
34:
324:, a clear consensus to delete at the AFD. I don't see that there would be a problem if a non-UPE were to want to come up with a new article from scratch.
43:
217:
302:
This was an interesting AFD which showed a clear consensus to delete, even disregarding the donkey vote. If the edits creating the article were
433:
fwiw, his most cited articles, have GS cites of 1747, 891, 684, 645 . Some are major journals/conferences, some not but on fashionable topics.
232:
39:
179:
144:
21:
406:
357:
183:
165:
515:
94:
17:
287:
236:
345:
275:
481:
504:
485:
462:
444:
426:
411:
387:
370:
that is what happens. If it does get re-created, then we know something--WP:BEANS about the details. ``
361:
328:
316:
291:
240:
114:
83:
198:
110:
70:
404:
384:
353:
303:
204:
A previous faculty member of the
Department of Computer Science at Pennsylvania State University
477:
312:
79:
377:
458:
422:
250:
delete the article: not only does the UPE have to refund the money (unless they're being
325:
187:
440:
401:
381:
349:
283:
497:
308:
75:
454:
418:
211:
435:
279:
191:
269:
476:
to deal with this, and in that AfD, the consensus was clear.
453:
Some are pretty obscure. Others (AAAI for example) are not.
174:
improve
Knowledge (XXG). Reasons why it should be undeleted.
151:
137:
129:
121:
207:
Current
Professor at Georgia Institute of Technology
197:
Co-authored 365 articles in peer-reviewed journals (
210:Scientist who has been named in several patents (
178:The subject is very clearly notable mentioned on
74:– Deletion is endorsed; no consensus to salt –
8:
226:Recieved grants from DARPA, NASA and others.
212:https://www.cc.gatech.edu/~zha/patents.html
93:The following is an archived debate of the
400:notable topic is almost always a mistake.
343:
273:
63:
7:
223:Speaker at the IEEE Computer Society
518:of the page listed in the heading.
180:Nonlinear dimensionality reduction
28:
494:may well be another paid editor.
339:Repeat as many times as necessary
514:The above is an archive of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
1:
184:Local tangent space alignment
541:
505:18:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
486:00:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
463:16:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
445:06:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
427:04:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
412:02:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
388:23:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
362:17:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
329:09:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
317:08:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
292:05:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
268:scientist" -- Director of
241:04:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
84:12:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
521:Please do not modify it.
100:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
380:only goes so far. --
304:Wikimedia:Terms of Use
473:ArbCom has made clear
397:Reluctantly endorse
194:and several others.
97:of the page above.
528:
527:
408:DESiegel Contribs
364:
348:comment added by
294:
278:comment added by
532:
523:
500:
335:Endorse and salt
218:NSF CAREER Award
168:
163:
154:
140:
132:
124:
102:
64:
53:
33:
540:
539:
535:
534:
533:
531:
530:
529:
519:
516:deletion review
498:
409:
164:
162:
159:
150:
149:
143:
136:
135:
128:
127:
120:
119:
98:
95:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
538:
536:
526:
525:
510:
509:
508:
507:
488:
467:
466:
465:
448:
447:
430:
429:
414:
407:
393:
392:
391:
390:
372:
371:
366:
365:
332:
319:
296:
295:
265:
262:
257:
256:
233:200.82.132.120
228:
227:
224:
221:
215:
208:
205:
202:
199:Google scholar
195:
188:Entity linking
171:
170:
160:
147:
141:
133:
125:
117:
105:
104:
89:
88:
87:
86:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
537:
524:
522:
517:
512:
511:
506:
503:
502:
501:
492:
489:
487:
483:
479:
474:
471:
468:
464:
460:
456:
452:
451:
450:
449:
446:
442:
438:
437:
432:
431:
428:
424:
420:
415:
413:
410:
405:
403:
398:
395:
394:
389:
386:
383:
379:
376:
375:
374:
373:
368:
367:
363:
359:
355:
351:
347:
340:
336:
333:
330:
327:
323:
320:
318:
314:
310:
305:
301:
298:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
271:
266:
263:
259:
258:
253:
248:
245:
244:
243:
242:
238:
234:
225:
222:
219:
216:
213:
209:
206:
203:
200:
196:
193:
189:
185:
181:
177:
176:
175:
167:
158:
153:
146:
139:
131:
123:
116:
112:
109:
108:
107:
106:
103:
101:
96:
91:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
59:10 April 2018
57:
50:
49:2018 April 11
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
520:
513:
496:
495:
490:
478:TonyBallioni
469:
434:
396:
344:— Preceding
334:
321:
299:
274:— Preceding
251:
246:
229:
172:
111:Hongyuan Zha
99:
92:
71:Hongyuan Zha
69:
58:
35:2018 April 9
44:2018 April
326:Lankiveil
220:Recipient
382:RoySmith
358:contribs
350:RoySmith
346:unsigned
288:contribs
276:unsigned
192:Isometry
20: |
499:Hut 8.5
491:Endorse
470:Endorse
322:Endorse
309:Thincat
300:Endorse
247:Endorse
166:restore
130:history
385:(talk)
378:WP:AGF
252:really
76:Stifle
455:Hobit
441:talk
419:Hobit
270:NERSC
152:watch
145:links
52:: -->
16:<
482:talk
459:talk
423:talk
354:talk
313:talk
284:talk
255:TOU.
237:talk
138:logs
122:edit
115:talk
80:talk
32:<
436:DGG
402:DES
280:DGG
157:XfD
155:) (
22:Log
484:)
461:)
443:)
425:)
360:)
356:•
315:)
290:)
286:•
239:)
190:,
186:,
182:,
82:)
42::
480:(
457:(
439:(
421:(
352:(
331:.
311:(
282:(
235:(
214:)
201:)
169:)
161:|
148:|
142:|
134:|
126:|
118:|
113:(
78:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.