User talk:Aytea

Please feel free to leave me a message at the bottom on the page and thanks for reaching out.

Hello, Aytea, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! J Milburn (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Kianor Shah requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 66.102.196.235 (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC) This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... A. Third parties have contributed B. Numerous Wikipedia staff have modified original article to assure full compliance C. Numerous have agreed that the person and topic are of significance by Wikipedia guidelines C. Too many third sources have reported on the topic in news media - multiple reliable sources (mainstream) and published in several countries D. It is untrue that claims are made only from companies owned by Dr. Shah E. It is untrue that it is a pseudo biography F. All accomplishments in business and academic should not go ignored. Many qualify for a fraction of coverage G. The nominating parties may not have read all the referenced articles H. This statement is erroneously false: "The only reliable, third-party, published sources are about him suing WalMart, which I suspect isn't that unique or notable." - The nominee may suspect that, but there is not one person in human history that has taken legal action against the largest company in the world pertaining to the claims that were made. It does not happen everyday that such an article is published in 15 countries including NY Post (the most viewed article that week for the NY Post) and Huffington Post as well as many others that have not been listed. I. It is professional and ethically correct to address a Dr. as a Dr. - the nominee has removed all such reference for no reason. J. This statement is untruthful. "The only possible significance or importance claim is the "peer-to-peer platform" the article claims Dr. Shah created. All references to this are from personal statements from Shah and press releases from an organization owned by Shah. This contention is false. Please review references.[reply]

A tag has been placed on Kianor Shah requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 66.102.196.235 (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Hi Aytea. Please be advise that numerous individuals from Wikipedia have read and modified the article to this point to make it compliant. It was finally accepted. Please read all of the articles and consider all the domestic and international coverage, business and academic accomplishments published prior nominating this to deletion. It has met all criteria set forth and beyond. Thanks.[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. 66.102.196.235 (talk) 05:19, 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?

Hello again! Could you weigh in on the raft of changes and additions to the Tim Echols WP article and the many WP policies it violates? They should interest you greatly. Many thanks. TP anonymous (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for the help! TP anonymous (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]