Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shiva Ayyadurai

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 keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva Ayyadurai

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

Vanity page. See talk: and talk:Email. This person has recently been problematic for some overblown claims regarding their claimed invention of EMAIL, claims that have even been echoed from WP into major newspapers, to the embarrassment of all concerned. Many editors have been involved, some stripping the dubious claims, others (including IPs and accounts with few other edits) re-adding them. Whether this person is judged notable or not, the current article is a mess and warrants immediate and careful scrutiny. Some of the claims, whilst perhaps true, are nowhere of the standard to convey real notability, as judged by another competent worker in that field (see the talk: comments). Others, including the ostensibly simple "four degrees from MIT" are unsourced. Although that one does have a "source",[1] and from MIT too, it's not a reliable enough source for an article that has already been tainted by so many dubious claims and recycled press releases (as the current ref clearly is). Recently PRODed and tagged for notability, although these have also been removed. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it turns out that the claims have indeed been exaggerated, then notability promptly comes into question. And besides one dubious claim, I see nothing of note. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This doesn't read in the slightest like a vanity page, nor is it full of spurious claims. Instead, it's a richly detailed portrait of a well-known public figure, warts and all - it's by no means a flattering article - with a strong list of citations including a New York Times article on Ayyadurai. The fact that he as a business leader is known to have made at least one false claim is itself of interest - Wikipedia covers rogues, scoundrels, even fascist dictators and mass-murderers get their articles. He's a character who has a proven track record of interesting the public and journalists. A highly notable figure, like him or not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"well-known public figure" Got a source for that? A source that isn't one of his own press releases? Just what is he notable for? This needs to be both notable, and to be verifiable. All too many of these claims are one or the other, but if they're not both, they have to go.

I have sympathy for the "notable scoundrel" viewpoint, but whilst that might justify keeping the article, it only justifies keeping an article that says "overblown claims for email invention" and nothing else. Whether we delete the article, or simply prune it heavily, we need to expunge any of these claims that aren't either relevant or verified, and that's looking pretty thin at the moment. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the reply. I note that the New York Times thought him notable enough to justify an article on him, not just a minor mention, and I believe it is a fairly reputable source, not especially likely to have been written by Ayyadurai's PR assistant. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If for no other reason than to provide the counterpoint to his claims that he invented Email at age 14. I took a quick look online and here's a reference from 17 February 2012 Washington Post which claims he did. BTW, about lying and notability... If lies of fact were a reason to take people out of Wiki, we'd be missing at least two U.S. Presidents ! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That utterly misleading Washington Post article is what has made this problem so urgent to address. It's certainly no reference. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There has been so much analysis around the world on his claim after the articles on TIME and WP (some examples: [2], [3], [4], [5]). He has become himself the main subject, we cannot just say that he is not notable. Also the fact that his work has been accepted to the Smithsonian's American History Museum, whether he deserves it or not, is notable. Also there was a topic about his push to get USPS to change their business model like in this article [6]. In that article, it does not mention his claim about invention of email as the basis of the article. So his work is not only around the invention-of-email claim. Z22 (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That argument equates to redefining Wikipedia notability as, "If you're not notable, but you run the wiki-scam for long enough to fool a newspaper, then you become notable."

No way. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might be partially correct. I got your point. However in my argument, I didn't use TIME and WP as the sources for the establishment of his notability. It is more on other secondary sources that covered a story about his false claim. If someone runs a wiki-scam and fools two reputable newspapers long enough, but no one else cares about it, then that person is not notable. This is not the case. Beside, as mentioned, he is not only known for the email claim. Z22 (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what else is he notable for? Let's pick a section that we can all understand, "Social activism":

" led and participated in demonstration for social causes."
" In 1985, he participated in a demonstration against South Africa under apartheid."
"[In 2008] Ayyadurai demonstrated against the Iraq War."

This utter trivia is the level of this whole article. Who (especially anywhere near a campus) didn't protest against Iraq? How many students of his age didn't protest against apartheid? (Trafalgar Square for me, right outside their embassy) A "Fulbright Award" sounds impressive, but it's actually just one of a number of scholarships awarded annually - great news for your personal finances, but encyclopedic notability? We'd be hard-pressed to justfy List of Fulbright Scholarships as an article, let alone claim it as notability evidence for a personal article. Anything in this article is either self-serving self-publication, trivia, or outright fakery. Just pick a chunk and scratch the surface - it's all base metal underneath.

Maybe he is notable after all, as the WP:author of “The Internet Publicity Guide” - after all, he does seem so very good at it! Andy Dingley (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although, at this point, I don't think it is required now to show other topics to establish the notability. Just for the benefit of showing something, here is just one topic:

CSIR Controversy: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] and tons of other references on this issue. Z22 (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unfortunately, as is can be a way for restoring the truth about his false claims about email. If high-standard newspapers like TIME and WP keep their unverified and misleading articles available forever, then Wikipedia must be there to correct the situation, for future generations... But that would be the only reason. Evoisard (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly the puffery needs to go, but given his appearance on Time, The Washington Post, Nature and the Smithsonian etc he is notable. Snori (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The one thing he's very clearly not notable for is his appearance in the Washington Post etc. as the inventor of email. He didn't invent email. These sources are unreliable. We can only use those sources to support a claim that he did invent it (which he didn't). We can't use those sources to support a claim that he didn't, as that would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We might use the sources from TechDirt or a pretty clear article here, so long as we consider those sources to be adequate to verify this, and we consider what is a very minor act of fooling journalists to be notable per WP:SCAM, WP:CRIME (or whatever the relevant standard is). This isn't the Piltdown Man, or selling the Eiffel Tower, after all. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But remove any of the press release-sounding self promotion stuff. Article should be trimmed down to a very brief bio and a summary of the more recent articles that have researched his claim to have invented EMAIL or whatever. The worst thing that you can do is remove all discussion about his claim, as the articles that are still hanging around on the web that support his claim will have no central place to refute them. --Alan Davies (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Only because I think it is important to keep a record of and clarify that this individual did NOT invent the concept of email or even the first implementation. Now that these claims have been published by mainstream media it is important to have accurate and correct information available for future research by fact checkers. --BenFranske (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've copy-edited the article to remove weasel words and peacock phrases. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep, sadly. I suspect "making exaggerated and false claims" is not what he would want to be known for, but he does in fact appear to be notable for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the blogosphere sufficient WP:RS to support such a defamatory BLP? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he'll get his own Ayyadurai Effect in the future; a variant of the Streisand Effect, whereby someone tries to make themselves famous for something positive, and ends up becoming famous for something else in the process. --Alan Davies (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if the rest of the non-notable material is removed. In spite of my original statement on the article talk page, he has now indeed become notable for managing to scam the press with his false invention claim. But other trivial matters should be removed from the article. Some of this has been done already. Jpgs (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I came to the page totally independent of any deletion votes, which in and of itself should tell you something. He's done something (whether that something which he claims to have done or not, I do not say), and appears to have received notability for that. So keep the article, but keep an eye on it to make it accurate. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:44, 29 February 2012 (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.