Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kianor Shah

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kianor Shah[edit]

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

It is clear by the history of the page this article is an autobiography (WP:AUTO), lacks notability (WP:SPIP), and is intended to serve as promotion of the subject's business interests (WP:PROMO).

On its status as an autobiography, please refer to the history of the page and note that the original author's user name was initially "KianorShah." Also, please refer to the talk page where the only individual contesting a previous speedy deletion nomination seems to be the subject himself. This article does not meet the high standard for independence or neutrality as discussed on WP:AUTO for the reasons below.
On the issue of notability, it is clear this page falls under the "Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity" circumstances as described in WP:SPIP. As described, notability requires publication of works independent of the subject and without incentive. The sources listed are press releases issued by the organization of which Shah is listed as chairman and are clearly paid publications of promotional material. The author (and subject of the article), contends he is notable because he filed suit against Wal-Mart. As I discussed in the article's talk page, Wal-Mart is one of the most sued companies in the US and as such a suit against them does not merit notability.
On the issue of business promotion, I repeat my arguments from above. The sources are not independent and seem to be paid promotional publications.

As an autobiography which lacks independent third-party sources and is designed for self and business promotion, I recommend Delete. Aytea (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Aytea (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This promotional autobiography's claim to Notability for the subject seems to ride on third-party coverage of a lawsuit against WalMart. Now that the lawsuit is apparently settled, I don't see how this article's subject meets Wikipedia's Notability standards. I come to this opinion not because it was settled, but because I cannot find any media or other sources that have discussed the case in the 40+ days since the apparent settlement. Nothing. Zero. The lack of 3rd-party interest in what has happened in the case makes me feel that this case was minor, not noteworthy and not a solid foundation to build a claim of Notability for Shah. Stesmo (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject of the article faIls WP:GNG. The law suit is of no encyclopedic importance. Wikicology (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost a G11, because there's nothing substantial once one removes the self-promotion. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments are invalid and a personal opinion of two individuals. Just because a confidential settlement is not covered in the news, it does not mean it does not merit notability. There is nothing to report on. The idea that it is self and business promotion is completely out of line. Multiple parties have contributed to this article. Over 20 independent reliable =sources without incentive have written about the person in question. Several domestic and international articles were removed due to Wikipedia policy. The original individual that prepared the article was not "KianorShah" but the user name was used as such. Multiple individuals have contributed to the article. Every instruction of an administrator was met by those whom have contributed. The article was prepared by an independent neutral party, and it should be verified before claiming otherwise. Insinuating that all 20 sources are "press releases issued by the organization of which Shah is listed as chairman and are clearly paid publications" is ludicrous. The number of times Walmart has been sued in the United States is completely irrelevant to this person's notability contention, article, or focus of the article. There has been coverage on NBC, DTI, Registered News, Hufftington Post, NY Post, USA Today, WIU, SIU, The Beacon, scientific journal and on and on the list goes - none of which are owned by "KianorShah", nor were there any affiliation whatsoever, nor is it all about the Walmart case (there are only four article referenced per administrators prior requests). The suggestion that these are paid articles is untruthful, without merit, and offensive, at best. Several topics, which have no bearing or relationships to the Walmart case, carry their own merits of national and international recognition (academia and business). For instance, if making the ALL USA Academic Team is not noteworthy, then what is? The list of reasons for notability are rather long and not about Walmart. It is very clear that these two editors have not read all the article and their arguments are without merit and solely based on personal opinion. If Wikipedia allows its editors to attack notable people based on personal biased or lack of knowledge on the topic (which is a national debate), then how can Wikipedia have double standards for independence and neutrality. The page was modified numerous times by administrators to clearly assure that full compliance is met including notability (numerous times over) and independence. It was accepted by Wikipedia and reviewed numerous times. There is no explanation for the behavior of these two administrators against all policies set forth by Wikipedia, which have clearly been met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.196.235 (talk) 05:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I point out that if 66.102.196.235 (above) is aware of a "confidential settlement" it is clear the editor is Shah himself, which creates clear questions under WP:COI and WP:AUTO as I previously referenced. For the benefit of 66.102.196.235/Shah, please understand that this is not intended to impugn you as a person, but simply remove an article that does not establish proper notability. There are many important, accomplished, and successful individuals and corporations which do not rise to the notability standards of this community. For further clarification to your question of "what is notable?" please read Wikipedia:Notability

Additionally, having a press release issued by a corporation you control, and having the release picked up by one of the outlets you mentioned, is not independent coverage and is explicitly excluded under the General Notability Guidelines(WP:GNG).

Finally, I understand your frustration, but please remember to exercise civility in our discussions. I assure you, all your fellow editors participating in this process have done their due diligence with regard to your article, and would not be participating otherwise. Aytea (talk) 05:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that this editor is jumping to numerous conclusions based on assumptions and makes unfounded allegations without the proper research. It demonstrates that the editors did not properly read all the references in the article deemed to meet all notability guidelines. The fact that there was confidential settlement is public information and anyone with internet access can find this information out on the court docket (reference #11) within seconds. The editor conclusively states 66.102.196.235/Shah must be Shah because only Shah could have known of the settlement of the case, which demonstrated the authors inability to comply with Wikipedia rules – it is indeed public information. Same conclusion is reached by the editor who claims that the article was written by Shah because the user name by the author was “KianorShah” even though there have been several contributors and the author was clearly not Shah himself, so the idea of an autobiography is flawed. Further, he or she provides an erroneous argument about other public figures who do not meet notability standards, which is not applicable to the arguments he or she makes based on the Walmart issue and one press release. This editor constantly makes unfounded and biased allegations without merit, whatsoever. A comparable unfounded allegation would be if it was stated that these two editors have been influenced by third parties to protect dental management service organizations and deprive the leader of the opposition movement the ability to have a Wikipedia article for the people, and by the people. This is a nationally covered topic (reference 12, 14). There is fine line between free speech and libel. These individuals falsely assure that all due diligence has been made. Please reference all the other articles (i.e. DrBicuspid – reference 13 – a prominent independent national dental news outlet article, calling Shah a leader in dentistry based on notable accomplishments, the scientific journals reference # 20, 21, the vast number of news publications, domestic and international coverage, and so on). These two editors refuse to accept that more than several administrators have worked on this article and have brought it to complete compliance per Wikipedia rules. They refuse to acknowledge that it was accepted after many the corrections were made for compliance and keep referencing Walmart, which is a fraction of independent third party coverage. The proper Wikipedia action for a press release that does not meet criteria is to remove the press release/reference – not an entire article or the existence of an individual on Wikipedia. What becomes a more important question of interest is why are these two editors so persistent, judgmental, and are not exercising the rules set forth for an editor by Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.148.132 (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1) There is a contributor named Nobnosa who appears to be a Single Purpose Account (having only edited this page). 2) There is another SPA named Kstar. Each of these made very large numbers of edits to this page, and thus must be said to have an unhealthy particular interest if they are not Shah himself. 3) "Extraction Academy" is essentially Shah and two colleages. The "details" page just shows Shah. So it's his personal business, not an academic appointment as implied in the article. 4) The lawsuit is a one-time event, which does not contribute to notability. 5) Cite #20 says Journal of Chemical Education but links to American Journal of Physical Anthropology. No journal articles appear in Google Scholar under Kianor Shah. 6) Nothing here mentions that his name as given elsewhere is "Kianor Shahmohammadi," an important detail that is oddly missing. The two articles that I can positively attribute to him are under that name. Therefore: possible WP:COI, WP:ONEEVENT, and no other claims to notability. LaMona (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:

Dear Viewer, This article was written about me. In response to the above statements and arguments:

A. It was not me "Kianor Shah" who prepared this article. The original IP address will lead to a person in Canada that used "KianorShah" as a Username. I live in the United States (California). I am not "Nobnosa", either - The IP address is from Washington.

B. I have requested a Speedy Deletion in the past, but nothing happened. Please take the proper action based on your guidelines and rules.

C. This was not an autobiography, as the individuals above have claimed. Although, the article appears to be highly referenced (almost every sentence and paragraph)and the claims are third party claims, therein.

D. Apparently, Journal of Anthropology and Chemical Education did not archive or synchronize with Google Scholar. They are highly reputable journals. The scientific publications exist in archive, but have been wrongly referenced by a third party:

Project Title: The Effect of Mesio-Distal Chamber Dimension on Access Preparation in Mandibular Incisors

Publication: Nielsen Christen John, and Kianor Shahmohammadi. Journal of Endodontics. 31(2):88-90, February 2005.

Presentation: SIUE School of Dental Medicine – Table clinics 2003.

Honors Thesis Title: Craniofacial Dimension in Small Anthropoids and Prosimians

Publication: Runnestad-Connour, Jaqueline, and Shahmohammadi, K. (2000). American Journal of Physical Anthropology (30). 278-9.

Presentation: American Association of Physical Anthropologists 69th Annual Meeting in San Antonio, Texas – April 14th, 2000.

Project Title: A One-Pot Synthesis of m-Terphenyls: A Guided Exploration of Reaction Chemistry, Chromatography and Spectroscopy

Citation: Anam, Kishorekumar T.; Curtis, Michael P.; Irfan, Muhammad J.; Johnson, Michael P.; Royer, Andrew P.; Shahmohammadi, Kianor; Vinod, Thottumkara K. Journal of Chemical Education. 2002 (79) 629.

Presentation: 35th Midwest Regional Conference Meeting of the American Chemical Society in St. Louis, Missouri – October 267th, 2000.

D. The Extraction Academy is indeed an Academic Institution teaching surgical topics via didactics, workshops, live hands-on surgery, and related clinical topics, to dental professionals. It carries continuing education credits, is endorsed by leading academic organizations, and provides for recognized certification of CE credits for the licensure renewal purposes. Faculty is appointed due process (i.e. majority vote by a board of colleagues) based on credentials and demonstration of clinical ability. Personally, I have performed over 10,000 surgical appointments and procedures in this discipline, since 2007.

E. It is true that there has been a settlement and that the case has come to a conclusion. This case does not define notability nor should it be the center point of this discussion, considering the volume of independent mainstream coverage on other unrelated topics in business and academia.

F. Article states in the first sentence: "Kianor Shah (born Kianor Shahmohammadi, September 19, 1980) is a Persian American practicing dentist, living in California." This is accurate and the name "Kianor Shahmohammadi" does not seem to have been omitted from the article, as contended above.

G. I do not personally believe that the authors of the article were "riding on the Walmart case" to demonstrate notability, as they referenced third party articles on numerous other topics. There has been quite a bit of independent coverage over the years that have not been covered by this article. A simple search should demonstrate that.

H. With all said above, please delete this article if it does not meet the standards, rules, and guidelines of Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.213.19 (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you agree that we can delete this. However, a couple of points. 1) There is no record of a request for previous delete in the list of edits to the page. I'm not sure who you asked to delete the page, but there was no prior deletion process initiated. 2) To be an "academic institution" in the US you must be accredited as such. Just doing training does not make it an academic institution. It can be called a training center or, as you do, "X Academy" or whatever, but unless it confers recognized degrees, generally under state control, then it does not have the status of an institution that is accredited to confer degrees. This affects notability of the organization. 3) The Extraction Academy has a total of 3 faculty, including Shah, no "board of colleagues" listed. 4) Oddly, the pages of the EA list other training organizations that are accredited, but none of those pages list Shah or Extraction Academy as being part of their programs. Although the ADA CERP (continuing education program) is listed on the page, the link is not live. Extraction Academy is NOT listed in the ADA CERP list of approved education providers 5) of the linked "organizations", one is to a line of medical clothing, and another is an interesting organization whose web site boasts "By investing $1,000,000 you will obtain not only a great return on your investment but also permanent residency in the USA ("the Green Card") and later on USA Citizenship for you and your whole family." Honestly, this does not look good. LaMona (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I must respectfully disagree with your position:

1. I have requested a deletion of this page before. 2. Under State Control? Do you know how many organizations in the United States are considered academic and are private? 3. Board of Directors are not listed. I cannot find a rule on Wikipedia that it is a requirement for a website to list all board of directors and members to the Academy. 4. The Academy is listed and endorsed by several accredited training organizations. ADA CERP provider is issued by the Extraction Academy and therefore not listed in the ADA CERP. Please take a closer look before you make these kind of statements: a. Tribune Group is an ADA CERP Recognized Provider. ADA CERP is a service of the American Dental Association to assist dental professionals in identifying quality providers of continuing dental education. ADA CERP does not approve or endorse individual courses or instructors, nor does it imply acceptance of credit hours by boards of dentistry. b. Biologix Solutions LLC is designated as an Approved PACE Program Provider by the Academy of General Dentistry. The formal continuing dental education programs of this program provider are accepted by AGD for Fellowship, Mastership, and membership maintenance credit. Approval does not imply acceptance by a state or provincial board of dentistry or AGD endorsement. 5. The Website you are referencing, is one of the many sponsors of the Academy, promoting peer to peer collaboration. Are you contending that Universities and Academic institutions from around the world don’t accept sponsorship funds for expansion, operating expense, and international education? 6. What do you mean with the statement that "it does not look good?" What does not look good? It does not look good to educate others? It does not good look good to be a faculty member? It does not look good to accept sponsorship funds from other legitimate organizations? It does not look good to be involved with the United States EB-5 program? It does not look good to offer a government sponsored program by third parties? What does this statement mean? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.213.19 (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"3. Board of Directors are not listed. I cannot find a rule on Wikipedia that it is a requirement for a website to list all board of directors and members to the Academy." The main rule on Wikipedia is verifiability. Anything stated in a Wikipedia article must be verifiable. Therefore if one says "Member of such-and-such institution", or "chosen by a group colleagues" then it must be possible to verify that fact. Unverifiable information can be deleted. In this case, I apply the same rule to statements in defense of retaining the article. It all must be verifiable. The other key rule is reliable sources. Among the sources that are not considered reliable are blogs, sites that are primarily advertising, and other resources that do not have any editorial oversight. None of this means that the information is non-existent. What it means is that Wikipedia cannot accept these sources as proof of the information stated. There are citations in the article that appear to fail the test of reliability (for example #6, #8, #11). This then weakens the overall reliability of the article, and thus to measure of notability of the subject. All of this is pretty standard procedure for Wikipedia. LaMona (talk) 22:50, 26 October 2014 (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.