"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. 
    

 "