Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yash Talreja

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. I read the lengthy comments below and looked carefully at the article. The number of single purpose accounts expressing "keep" wasn't encouraging nor that Coolguyfromwest !voted "keep" twice. Additionally, the "delete" arguments were detailed, persuasive and to the point, particularly Whpq's analysis of the citation/sources. Most of the article boils down to a general resume of Yash Talreja's career: positions he held, project teams he led, companies he worked for. The assertion of notability connected to the specific patent seems valid but he was also one of six names on the patent, not a clear individual assertion. The importance of the patent itself seems clear but with no secondary WP:V or WP:RS sources to interpret the patent's direct significance to online commerce and its history, the claim is essentially WP:OR. I note that the entire fourth paragraph of the article outlining the significance has no citations for its content, again suggesting WP:OR. Note: This was a complicated discussion. If someone feels I've misinterpreted the discussion or the evidence, please bring it to WP:DRV. Pigman☿ 02:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yash Talreja[edit]

Yash Talreja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Only claim of notability is one patent. No references to independent reliable sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are working on getting more references. Please be patient.User:Coolguyfromwest 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This was a stub. It takes a bit to build the complete works of Mr. Talreja. ****--Leppykahn (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)— Leppykahn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

please dont delete there is more information now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.175.117 (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If the subject is not notable, there is nothing you can add to the article to save it from deletion. The article does not even mention what, specifically, the patent he received was for. One does not become a notable inventor by simply adding a minor improvement to an existing invention. --Blanchardb-MeMyEars MyMouth-timed 11:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: more details have been added for the invention, and other various links. Mr. Talreja even coined the term Artificial Imagination as part of his research done in the topic at University of California, Davis, a term which we are planning to define at wikipedia. Someone who invented a notable entry for a wikipedia has to be considered to be notable.

Coolguyfromwest (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment At one point, the article states, "Mr. Talreja’s contribution to the field of Electronic Commerce was recognized by grant of US Patent 6578015". To me this is not an assertion of notability. If I say, "Graham Bell received a patent with such and such number," I am not asserting Bell's notability in any way. However, if I say, "Graham Bell invented the telephone," now that is a valid notability assertion. To me, both this article and its talk page sound a lot like bells and whistles to give a man more notability than his achievements warrant. IF the Wikipedia community deems this man notable enough, then there is a thorough cleanup to be done to the article, with the question being, not, what else should we add?, but rather, what should we delete?. One exception though... the article should say in the very first sentence what Talreja's patent was for, and it should say so in no more than one line, with the word patent not used in that sentence. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 03:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, people are getting rather particular. I've seen many wikipedia articles that are much more stubby than this one and are not marked for deletion. (For instance: soy candles). Is this because it is an article about a person and not an object? Also, I've also seen articles where the person is notable for being someone else's relative, instead of being notable in their own right. These articles have never been marked for deletion. It seems that Mr. Talreja is being picked on for no good reason. I personally use Peoplesoft at my job, so now I must thank MR. Talreja for having a hand in that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.177.27 (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC) — 75.20.177.27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above argument falls under the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS category and only tells us which articles we should be discussing next at AfD. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 11:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, are you telling us that Talreja developped Peoplesoft? If he did, we need the article to say just that. If not, you are actually telling us that it is not Talreja that is notable, but whoever it is that built upon Talreja's work. As for stubby articles, the example you showed, Soy candle, says all that needs to be said to establish actual and verifiable notability. The Yash Talreja article fails in that domain despite being much longer. As I said before, notability should be asserted in the very first sentence of the article. Otherwise most people won't bother to read the rest. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 11:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are no reliable sources to establish notability. The references provided in the article don't cut it. And a search reveals press releases but thing of substance. I am open to having my mind changed by actual reliable sources but I see noen in the article and can find none in my own searches. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons given above, especially Blanchardb. Notability, especially for WP:BLP articles, needs to be clearly asserted, early in the article, and verified by independent, reliable, fact-checked sources. These are non-negotiable when dealing with articles about living persons. In fact, BLP says that whenever an assertion is made about a real, living person that is not verified, it is supposed to be deleted immediately without vote, without consensus, and without prejudice. The claims made in this article are large claims. If Mr. Talreja "invented" electronic payments, as asserted late in the article, could I or anyone else find an article about him? I would think so, but I couldn't. Maybe I've missed something. Keeper | 76 19:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I worked at Amazon.com from 1999 to 2004 and met Yash Talreja there. I can attest to the fact that he was part of the senior management team that headed the Item and Order Management Systems for our enterprise customers. Sincerely, Wilhelmina Dietrich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.226.41 (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC) — 24.18.226.41 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment No personal offense intended, but your personal testimonials are not considered reliable resources. Keeper | 76 20:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: The invention by Mr. Talreja of Methods, systems and devices of electronic bill presentment and payment is acknowledged and verifiable by the link to the entry in the USPTO provided in the reference. Since the Assignee is Oracle Corporation (again verifiable by the references provided), and Oracle has a product called Oracle Payments, (verifiable by another link) it is reasonable to assume that the invention is actually being used in the Product. May the reasons there are no other articles on his invention, is, that the magazine publishers refused to believe that someone called "Yash" and not Bill, Steve, Larry, or Graham could have actually invented anything notable? Despite the USPTO entry to the contrary? Harminder2 (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please assume good faith on behalf of your fellow editors, and do not assume racist motives. That could be seen as very insulting. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

modified previous entry to demonstrate my good faith on fellow editors. However, an invention should be considered verifiable based on the entry in USPTO and evidence of that invention's usage, not based on how many other people chose to highlight or ignore the inventor. We, at wiki are free of biases, but we cannot asume the same for the magazines. Harminder2 (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)— Harminder2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Your chain of reasoning may be correct oer may not be correct. There is no proof for verifiability. Oracle may have the patent but is not using it. Or using a part of it. but cannot just assume without prrof. -- Whpq (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this may be too demanding on the authors. Do we require a signed affadavit from Larry Ellison that the company is actually using the patents it must have spent hundred of thousands of dollars of legal fee to file and receive (both the invention and assignment to the company is veirfiable), on the products in the same domain (verifiable), before we admit anyone else other than Mr. Ellison/Mr. Henley to wikipedia? Cocolee2 (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: No, we do not need affadavits from Oracle executives. We need verifiable source indicating the notability of Yash Talrej. On claim is that this patent, in combination with the Oracle Payments product provides notability. I see several problems, but the biggest of all is that there is no documentation of your assumption. Your implication that the fact that Oracle spent money reseqarching it mean that ot must be in use. Let me assure you that companies do flush money into a project only to abandoin, shelve, or make very minor use of it. It happens. -- Whpq (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: But the product has survived the test of time, it is being sold for last 10 years and has been implemented not once but at many, MANY (thousands) of customer sites--it is not an internal project but a software product--and so there have been several very large and successful deployments. Would it help if we (me and my other co-authors) added verifiable, large deployments? Coolguyfromwest (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: added 7 references to field implementations; about 20 to 40 additional references can easily be provided. So our assertion is that (i) A key sets of inventions was made by Mr. Talreja (ii) that set of inventions is implemented in Oracle Payments (formerly known as Oracle iPayment) whose development was led by Mr. Talreja for first three releases (iii) Oracle Payment (iPayment) is a successful product which has been deployed at thousands of customer sites in last 9 years since its inception in 1998.Coolguyfromwest (talk) 07:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is interesting that the last three Keep pleas have come from single purpose accounts, as their first and only contributions. Keeper | 76 20:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP I am the co-author of this article, and I do have other contributions to wiki so mine is not a one use account. While I would like this article to be kept, I will very humbly accept the wiki community's decision. Notable is ill-defined, and someone has already commented that parity with other people featured on wiki is not the definition we can or should use for determining notability. So in the absence of a definition, I will accept the community's mandate. Coolguyfromwest (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Blanchardb, thanks for editting the article and cutting it to down to important stuff. I am new at writing articles and appreciate your assistance/ virtual tutoring. Coolguyfromwest (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.207.32.18 — 216.207.32.18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • KEEP-KUDOS to Blanchardb for cleaning up the article and deleting all the fluff! Talreja is notable because he is working on some of the more interesting and current stuff. And things have changed since Graham Bell invented the phone, the inventors of at large corporations mostly remain invisible while the corp. makes more money. Cocolee2 (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: To respond to Whpq's comment about doubts about the product's success, added 7 customer/field implementation references, anothr 40 are easily and readily available from a customer base of thousands of customers across the world. Coolguyfromwest (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - You've missed the point. It's not if Oracle Payments is a successful product. It's the claim that because he is one of the names on a patent for electronic billing, that somehow equates with a significant portion of Oracle payments. In any case, I still fail to see any reliable sources in the article. Shall we go through them?
1. His website is hardly neutral
2. Lowes's special order page: says nothing about him
3. Is a press release which again is hardly neutral
4. A Peoplesoft performance paper: unable to pull it up as the connection times out, but what does it have to do with Yash Talreja
5. The Oracle Payments product page: makes no mention of Yash Talreja
6. An article about Oracle Payments in Oracle's own magazine: it's hardly neutral, and it doesn't mention Yash Talreja anyways
7. A powerpoint presentation which doesn't mention Yash Talreja
8. An Oracle press release that doesn't mention Yash Talreja
9. A web message board posting which doesn't mention Yash Talreja
10. A blog posting about Oracle Payments with no mention of Yash Talreja
11. An Oracle hosted message board posting which doesn't mention Yash Talreja
12. Promotional literature from another company's integration to Oracle Paymements which again does not mention Yash Talreja
13. A press release from MessageGate about the appointment of two executives, one of which is Yash Talreja, but press releases are not independent reliable sources
14. A Televoke press reelease about hiring Yash Talreja, but again, press releases are not independent reliable sources
15. A unicode consortium listing which simply confirms that he is a member, but membership in such an organistion doesn't confer notability, since as far as I can tell, one just needs to pay a membership fee to join.
16. IIT Dehlhi Excellence Foundation appears to be an alumni network. Being a graduate of IIT Delhi doesn't confer notability.
17. The patent which lists Yash Talreja as one of the people on the patent. But a patent itself confers not notability.

So after going through all 17 reeferences, most are about Oracle Payments with no mention of Yash Talreja. So despite all the references, I do not see how the article has reliable sources that can establish notability, and provide verifiability. And I've conducted my own searches and can turn up only press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 13:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Look, the references to Oracle Payments were added to prove that it is a successful product in repsonse to your specific comment Your implication that the fact that Oracle spent money reseqarching it mean that ot must be in use. Let me assure you that companies do flush money into a project only to abandoin, shelve, or make very minor use of it. It happens. -- Whpq (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)" (above). the references prove that the project was not abandoned ,shelved or used in a minor way.

I will definitely go through each of your point and cross link it with each of the wiki-definitions for verifiability, referencebility etc. and I agree that some of the referencability is two step (Talreja-> linked to a mega patent -> linked to an Oracle Product which is hugely sucessful) but I believe it not only meets wiki-definitions, but actually meet the legal criteria of "beyond reasonable doubt" :-)

However, I have a holiday to celebrate, (and probably so do you) and I think both of us have made our points, let's give other editors a chance to comment.Coolguyfromwest (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Greetings: Oh, and Whpq, Happy Holidays! this discusion is serving as a good tutorial on wiki-gebility of articles for me. Coolguyfromwest (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Interesting discussion. taking a clue from Blanchardb-HimHisEarsHisMouth, I went ahead and cleaned up the article. To be fair to the author, he is new and he tried to answer Whpq's challenge by adding references to the article, rather than quoting those sources here.

FWIW, after researching the things for a while, I ended up creating a separate article on Oracle Payments because I believe it's a notable product. I removed all blogs and press releases for Oracle Payment and added references which follow wiki's guidelines about being independent, neutral and verifiable.

I also removed all references to press releases and blogs in the Articles on Talreja, but included news/magazine articles (not press releases) in Seattle PI and "Windows and Door magazine" which I found at Google News--these are minor but do provide an independent, verifiable and neutral proof for Talreja's executive positions at those organizations which is part of the article, and as per guidelines quoted by Whpq, should be backed up by independent, verifiable sources.

Does individual (not corporate) membership of Unicode Consortium add to one's notability? It is a *very* famous organization, has a wiki entry and has *less than* 50 individual members (rest being all big Corporations such as Oracle Corporation, Google, HP and even governments such as India and Pakistan). I am personally impressed by that, but obviously, your opinion may vary.

I did not remove the link to IIT Delhi Excellence Foundation since it does provide an independent and reliable way for verifying author's claim that Talreja is an IIT Delhi Alum which itself is notable by some standards, though definitely not enough by itself to justify a wikientry. Here is the catch 22, unless every statement in the article is backed by a independent, verifiable source, it is subject to being shot down. However, if references are included which *just* establish that the statement made in the article is true and add to notability, but do not establish notability, it is then itself becomes a reason for deletion? Jennlopez (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC) — Jennlopez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Oh, Whpq, I *was* able to download the .pdf file, it is a 31 page technical document which acknowledges Talreja as a contributor, and verifies that he was indeed an executive at PeopleSoft. It is verifiable and reliable; We have to believe that Talreja did not control the majority of such a large Corporation, so even though technically its not independent, in my book, it is. YMMV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennlopez (talk • contribs)

KEEP: Participation in a key set of 52 inventions (verifiable by an independent, reliable USPTO entry) which has resulted in a very successful (success verifiable by independent, reliable sources) Product meets my definition of notability. No large Technology company recognizes individual contributors behind their products so Talreja is actually lucky to actually have a verifiable, even though a two step link. And yes, I believe that since the invention was assigned to Oracle Corporation, and the Oracle Payments debuted around the same time when the invention was filed, and the product has extremely similar characteristics and features to the patent, that the product is an implementation of the patent. (I spent time matching them)

So Unless we believe Larry Ellison or Jeff Henley personally invented everything coming of Oracle Corporation, world's second largest company, they should not be only two Oraclites on wikipedia.

Participation in construction and release of another great product m2o which is also successfully deployed at Lowe's and some other references under [[m2o-- and Individual Membership in Unicode Consortium is icing on the cake. and yes, even verifiable, independent connection with IIT Delhi makes one more notable in Silicon Valley then three published articles in some arcane journal.

No software developer/Technologist in the commercial software domain will have any stronger evidence then noted in this article, so unless we restrict wikipedia only to actors, writers, athletes politicians and academic researchers (who usually just generate a whole lot of paper, nothing useful), and outcast inventors of some of the most useful products and applications, we should accept this.Rajeev22 (talk) 08:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC) — Rajeev22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yash_Talreja&oldid=1110080420"