Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Shimi Kang


 * 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 speedy delete. As David E suggested.  DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Shimi Kang

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No strong indication of notability. Has a "#1 Bestseller" book, but that phrase is rather meaningless (slightly off-topic: here's an article about someone getting a bestseller by selling 3 copies of a photo of his foot). Spoke at a bunch of conferences and won some minor awards, but not enough to pass WP:BIO. Iago Qnsi (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  03:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  03:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  03:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  03:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Note also that the article was created by, strongly suggesting the source as Red Bow Creative, a branding company, and that it was created as a paid service. (If it is kept, move it to Shimi Kang, per naming rules.) Mind  matrix  14:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Heavily promotional. Stuffed full of minor accomplishments tarted up to look more impressive than they are. No in-depth coverage in reliably published independent sources. No actual claim of significance discernable among all the wikipuffery. Even if some notability could be found, the article would need a complete rewrite (WP:TNT) to remove all the promotion. Plausibly a WP:CSD speedy. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The shared corporate username is cause for blocking alone, but more to the point, it's clearly a promotion-only account. I've reported it. It should be blocked, either for activity or it's username -- or both. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, after leaving my comment above, I was canvassed by a single-edit account who asked me to help rewrite the article less promotionally. If more of this turns up, an SPI might be in order. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Could possibly meet WP:NACADEMICS but I can't find evidence for this in a brief search. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT. If there is some possibility of meeting WP:NACADEMICS, let's leave it to someone else to attempt. The article creator has been indefinitely blocked. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi all. Not quite sure how to add to this thread properly (in the process of figuring it out), nor what an SPI is, but it certainly doesn't sound good. Is it against the Wiki rules to personally ask for help with rewrites? As I've seen other users do this on other talk pages, as well as read Wikipedia editor blogs telling people who need help with edits to email them? Had also read somewhere that articles that are not up to par or overly promotional could be moved to a draft space where non-biased users could make their edits. If this is indeed against the rules, will refrain from doing so in the future and have left the same message on page. Again, apologies to David for "canvassing" his talk page - intentions are not to break any rules. Carlyt28 (talk 22:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Possible KEEP. While the vast amount of original content was clearly an academic CV & copy of promotional content for author/presenter from promotional websites, it could be kept if stubbed. Notability of renamed Shimi Kang may not be due to WP:NACADEMICS but could be WP:AUTHOR if sufficient reliable sources could validate the significance/notability of the Dolphin Way book. Canuckle (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you.. Thank you for overlooking my unfamiliarity with vast Wikipedia rules and providing some helpful notes. So to clarify, Possible Keep is contingent on removal of elements of CV, or purely parts with 'promotional' writing? i.e. if "fluff" words are removed, is the rest fine? As for significance of The Dolphin Way book, will work to add as many references as possible. To clarify - references are of other sources speaking of The Dolphin Way and its validity, yes? Thanks again. Carlyt28 (talk)
 * Carlyt28 - See WP:NBOOK & WP:Reliable to see how a book can be notable enough to be on wikipedia and what third-party, neutral RELIABLE SOURCES are essential. Create your own User Talk Page and a Shimi Kang TALK page for these conversation on how to learn to edit wikipedia and improve this particular article. This article for deletion page does not need this personal discussion. Canuckle (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Carlyt28 so you're about to find out what an SPI is. Just to recap, folks, less than a quarter of an hour after the spam article creator was indef banned, this account has started editing, going immediately to canvass editors who have edited it in the past, in a effort to save this article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I made a new account because I learned the hard way that group accounts are not permitted, and in an effort to be able to communicate within Wiki rules to editors in this talk thread. I have not made any additional edits to the article, though I did click in by accident and clicked out (no changes made by me). Any edits that were made (to my knowledge) were added in by in an effort to be helpful. Also I was unaware of what canvassing is, only saw that others wrote on user talk pages with similar concerns so followed suit, and have apologized for doing so unknowingly against Wikipedia etiquette. On top of that, I have apologized and explained that any errors on my part are due to inexperience, not with the intention of purposefully breaking Wikipedia rules and that upon clarification, I would refrain from any rule-breaking actions immediately. If you cannot see past that and insist on being unjustifiably harsh, then I'm not sure what else I can do. Will apologize again for good measure - sorry for my lack of Wiki community etiquette knowledge, but learning quickly. Carlyt28 (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2016 (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.