Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Ayoub

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 delete. --Core desat 07:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Ayoub[edit]

Fails to establish notability, and appears to have been created as a coatrack for Ayoub's anti-vaccination views. Sideshow Bob Roberts 19:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 00:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. Midgley 01:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Most of the content is unsourced, and as Sideshow Bob says, it's a coatrack for anti-vaccination. It has numerous problems with non-NPOV content. --Kristjan Wager 15:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete ~~vanity~~ soapbox for nn individual. Bigdaddy1981 16:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's not a coatrack - he's primarily noteworthy due to his anti-vaccination views. As far as Kristjan Wager's comment "most of the content is unsourced" it's one of the most heavily-referenced short articles I've seen in a while, and I managed to fix 3 of the fact tags with a few minutes of Google-searching. As a recent parent, I've had several people who hold anti-vaccination views quote him at me to tell me that I shouldn't have my kids vaccinated. [Comment redacted, per WP:BLP.] As far as Bigdaddy1981's "vanity soapbox" comment, if it were one, there wouldn't be a criticism section. CruiserBob 00:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment of the ten references, I can see 5 that relate to his putative notability (notes 5-9) of these, one (8) is a self made YouTube video, another (5) is a blog and another (7) is something the article's subject wrote for a website called independent-media.tv (it bills itself as "only for news ignored and under reported"). Perhaps its not vanity; but I can't see how this is "one of the most heavily-referenced short articles" you've seen. I further note that two of the remaining citation needed tags are in the section which attempts to establish the subject's notability. As far as I can see the only possible notability for this man rests on his past sporting achievements. Bigdaddy1981 01:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm surprised by the suggestion that this article is "one of the most heavily-referenced short articles I've seen in a while". We don't judge an article by the number of references but by their quality: in this case, the references are uniformly unreliable (apart from the link to his macaque paper). As far as I can tell, he hasn't been the subject of a single reliable, published source (let alone the substantial coverage that Wikipedia generally demands) so this article will probably always be entirely dependent on unreliable sources.

If you believe Ayoub is notable, it would be helpful if you could show how he meets one of the criteria at either WP:BIO or WP:PROF. "Several people have mentioned him to me" is not evidence of notability. Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Do you think the Illinois Times or the Paramus Post are somehow beholden to Ayoub, or their coverage is otherwise unreliable? And given that notes 6 & 7 are quotes of Ayoub which describe his position, the fact that they are from things he's written/recorded himself make them perfect as reliable sources for showing what his position on vaccination are. Further, the fact that the blogger in note 9 feels the need to discredit Ayoub is a strong indication that he's notable among the anti-vaccination crowd. [Comment redacted, per WP:BLP.] the anti-vaccination movement gets enough play that his prominence in it makes him notable enough to merit inclusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CruiserBob (talk • contribs) 04:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

To clarify, nobody's saying the Illinois Times or the Paramus Post are "beholden to Ayoub". The problem is that these are small, local papers so they don't establish notability. If he's notable, he should have a lot more to show for it than two articles in local papers and a blog entry.

Also, small local newsmedia like these don't generally have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that Wikipedia requires from its sources so we shouldn't automatically take everything they say at face value. The article currently suggests that Ayoub has received "national media coverage". If this is true, we should be able to quote examples. Judging from the evidence presented so far, my granny's received more media coverage than this guy. Sideshow Bob Roberts 14:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If he is really notable for the expression of his views, wouldn't we expect there to be more in the way of sources than two local newspapers? His views are not unique--there are other espousing the same probably dubious theory, and it is necessary to show that he in particular is notable for them, not just that the theory that autism is caused by mercury in routine immunization is notable. he didn't develop the theory. DGG (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Ayoub DM" draws only six hits on PubMed; one is a recent letter to Am J Epidemiol, one is is 1983 Science paper, there are three radiology-related papers over the intervening twenty years, plus one letter to the editor of Am J Surg. Four actual publications over twenty-four years – even including one in Science – is a very weak publication record. It sure looks like this guy is being used as yet another coatrack to push a particular anti-vaccination position—for some reason this article has a "Quotes" section, and there seems to be an effort to remove criticism[1] from the article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I may not agree with his views, he appears to be notable for his activities in the vaccination opposition movement. Surely he's as notable as the least notable person on Wikipedia. Andrew73 15:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Surely he's as notable as the least notable person on Wikipedia" is a textbook example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and, as such, is not a very good argument. 65.241.15.131 18:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 8 papers on Medline for either 'D Ayoub' or 'DM Ayoub', even with one in Science, does not suggest a strong publication record which would meet WP:PROF on its own. I could find no evidence from the article or Google of high-quality national/international independent sources covering his stance on vaccines. Espresso Addict 16:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TenOfAllTrades, DGG. Current level of sourcing fails both WP:BIO and WP:PROF. ~~There's been a note somewhere that he's received a Stegner Fellowship; if that can be sourced, then perhaps it would meet the WP:PROF bar as receiving a notable award.~~My mistake - I misread the canvassing taking place here. Currently his publication record and academic position argue against PROF notability, and the lack of substantial independent secondary-source coverage argues against WP:BIO notability. Even if kept, the article requires a near-complete rewrite, as it is currently a poorly sourced, POV WP:COATRACK. MastCell ^Talk 19:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, DGG, Bigdaddy1981, Espresso Addict, et al. This is a classic bad article of a biography of a non-notable "scientist" used as a coatrack for publicizing unusual theories. Bearian 19:38, 9 August 2007 (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.