Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Shimi Kang

Dr. Shimi Kang

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

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. IagoQnsi (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Note also that the article was created by Redbowcreative (talk · contribs), 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.) Mindmatrix 14:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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#G11 speedy. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Incidentally, after leaving my comment above, I was canvassed by a single-edit account Carlyt28 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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. David Eppstein If this is indeed against the rules, will refrain from doing so in the future and have left the same message on Kendall-K1 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)[reply]

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)[reply]