Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Antonopoulos

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 No consensus. This AfD debate is, as observed below, a disaster. There are lots of SPAs participating (on both the delete and keep sides) with ridiculous arguments '"this is good for Bitcoin"). The sources in the article are insufficient to establish notability. However, several editors in good standing claim that such sources exist and I would suggest to them that they should add those as soon as possible. I close as no consensus, because there are also well-argued delete !votes from established editors. I have ignored all of the SPA !votes and the opinions not based in policy. If better sources are not added within a reasonable amount of time (say, 1 month), no prejudice to opening another AfD at that time. Randykitty (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Antonopoulos

[edit]
Andreas Antonopoulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is not notable outside the bit coin community. Has made one appearance in front of the Canadian senate (WP:ONEEVENT) and does not otherwise meet WP standards for notability. Most supporting statements/references will come from bit coin community "magazines" and "news" sites. Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC) — Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to the Canadian Senate, Andreas Antonopoulos is one of the most notable experts on what looks to be a multibillion dollar economy. From a quick glance I was able to find articles about him and mentions of him from publications outside the Bitcoin community, such as this article from PandoDaily, a general technology website. Andreas Antonopoulos. I searched Bloomberg and found dozens of mentions of and quotes by Antonopoulos. He seems to be at the forefront of his field and a noted expert on cryptocurrency. The article content could use some work, but I don't doubt that it should exist.
    • Quite simply, the article topic meets all guidelines in WP:GNG and I see no reason for deletion. The article topic has many secondary sources discussing it, and the fact that most, but not all, of those are bitcoin related does not disqualify it. The sources are still independent from Andreas Antonopolous and are not authored by him. Many of these articles feature Andreas Antonopolous or actions of Andreas Antonopolous as the primary topic. See Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 PandoDaily

Redpointist (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep A poorly written article isn't a reason to delete it entirely. Antonopolus has testified in front of many government panels and is a well-known consultant in the cryptocurrency industry. He is widely regarded as an expert in both the technical aspects of bitcoins and the impact of cryptocurrency upon public policy. The problem that many of the people suggesting to delete this article have is that whether Antonopolous is notable isn't based upon their own opinions; it's based upon the opinions of noteworthy sources. Whatever one feels about Antonopolous personally, it is indisputable that there are hundreds of secondary sources like the NY Times, PCWorld, the Washington Post, and so on that interview Antonopolous as an expert in his field. The only valid argument that Antonopolous is not noteworthy is if bitcoin is not noteworthy, and Wikipedia has ruled that the currency is noteworthy.quintin3265 (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether a subject thinks their article exists does not affect notability criteria, nor should it. Testem (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
May not affect notability, but WP:BIODEL could potentially apply here, if there happens to be no consensus. Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. Whether the article subject is relatively unknown or non-public is also debatable, I suppose. For reference, the comment from the article subject expressing their desire to not have an article is here. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Antonopoulos, giving numerous public speeches, and publishing numerous articles, cannot be considered a "non-public figure". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the information listed in the article, (authored more than 200 articles) Andreas M. Antonopoulos is also the author of Andreas M. Antonopoulos (April 2014). "2". Mastering Bitcoin. Unlocking Digital Crypto-Currencies. O'Reilly Media. Retrieved 23 October 2014. and worked as the Chief Security Officer at Blockchain. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This talk page has been spammed by /r/bitcoin users for whom this issue has become religious. Their spamming shows how the page lacks all three of the Wikipedia's policy on biographies- this article is not NPOV (reads like an advertisement for Bitcoin), not V (see previous point) and seems like a coatrack article. Andreas has written one book about Bitcoin. He has his place on Bitcoin's wikis (there are many) but not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.25.217.3 (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— 64.25.217.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment The debate over the deletion of this article is not dependent upon whether a website sent people here to participate in the discussion. Additionally, whether or not the current article is of spectacular quality is irrelevant to the discussion. This debate should focus on whether the subject is noteworthy enough to be included. If the article violates rules on biographies, then those violations should be corrected rather than the entire article being deleted. Quintin3265 (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let me ELI5 this. By now Andreas has become such a celebrity, that many people will be doing this simple google search: "andreas antonopoulos wiki". The most logical result would be to arrive to the relevant wikipedia article.
  • Keep Your argument started with "outside bit coin community". To me, this invalidate your whole argument because it would mean that we should remove Metallica because this music group is only notable in the Metal community. Therefore, because the Bitcoin is notable (getting people interest), their main actors are relevant and should stay on Wikipedia. Mostly because people might want to know who this person is (prior to buying his book or reading about him on the news, like the recent one about the canadian Senate), his page should stay here and serve these people. --Jflecool2 (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Jflecool2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
— Therealneptun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
— 92.201.54.139 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
"I've never heard of Bitcoin" Have you been living under a rock? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.56.105.219 (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of Constantine the Great, should we remove Castra_of_Pietroasele? Your personnal knowledge is not a valid argument. Subjectivity Jflecool2 (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Jflecool2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
— 207.166.225.31 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.139.20 (talk) [reply]
  • Keep - A very quick Google search reveals that Andreas Antonopoulos has been covered by tens, probably hundreds, of top mainstream news sites outside of "bit coin" (scare quotes deserved) "magazines" and "news" sites (scare quotes undeserved and offensive). Giulioprisco (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Giulioprisco I also did a quick Google search and did not find him covered by "top mainstream news sites." After four pages of blogs and bitcoin sites, I gave up. Could you please list some of the ones you found? Thanks. LaMona (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— 42.79.213.185 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
    • Another comment Again, an argument that adds nothing to this discussion. This comment reads more like patent nonsense than anything else. Quintin3265 (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • See this source for a quote from the film Dr. Strangelove - General Jack D. Ripper: He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. The vote is more likely a joke than patent nonsense. Alansohn (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Antonopoulos is a prominent figure in the Bitcoin community for a number of reasons. Bitcoin, although relatively new, is certainly not a fad and has existed with increasing popularity since 2009. I encourage anyone needing any more information on either Antonopoulos or Bitcoin to consult their respective Wikipedia entries which is of course why they exist. --10:49, 4 November 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.177.192 (talk)
— 67.184.177.192 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
— Dmodell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment After much consideration, reading of policies, and other posts on this thread, I don't feel I have enough experience to add in a meaningful way to this discussion. Jmdugan (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC) Previous comment struck: Keep This kind of debate is entirely ridiculous. There is no downside to Wikipedia keeping people listed. In my opinion, anyone who's given a solo speech to parliament is notable enough to be listed in a global, shared repository. Gosh, Wikipedia has an article on a single My Little Pony animated series episode, here The_Return_of_Harmony ; Square that with what is or is not notable enough to be included (and there are many other examples of ridiculously non notable norms on Wikipedia). Jmdugan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Jmdugan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.139.20 (talk) [reply]
Comment This is not the place to discuss the merits of wikipedia's notability criteria. Please try to consider the proposition on its merits Testem (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correction of wording: Antonopoulos was in one, exactly one, NYTimes article, in 2007. "...since at least 2007" makes it sound like there were other articles, but there were not. LaMona (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I agree with Wikipedia. I objected to the original idea to write an article about me, as I don't think I am "notable" in any sense of the word. All the article does is give trolls a public place to play out their petty battles and vandalism. I'd rather it was deleted." (emphasis mine)
This guy is a prominent figure in a marginal internet topic. This article could end up being a hazardous biography of a living person. I think until he gets some large fleshed out articles about him primarily, this article will be a hodgepodge of snippets of his work and casual vandalism.---Citing (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's notability criteria don't take into account the wishes of the subject, and nor should they. If the Queen of England expressed a wish to have her article deleted it too would be ignored. Testem (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Queen's opinion is irrelevant because she is a major public figure with thousands of published sources with her as the main topic. Antonopolous is a minor figure with very few (if any) reliable sources treating him as the main subject of interest. I prefer to be more careful about biographies of marginally important people.---Citing (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Sdietzer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.139.20 (talk) [reply]
Comment As much as I agree with you, the proposition should be considered on its merit and we should avoid ad hominem arguments wherever possible. Testem (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— 67.107.159.10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.139.20 (talk) [reply]
  • Keep Agree with Ethyr, Dmodell, Redpointist and Ladislav Mecir. Antonopoulos is a published author whose expertise has earned him council with the Canadian senate as well as quotes in news articles from a variety of sources. He is a published author and is as notable as any other expert on a niche topic. It is of note that there is not a wealth of secondary sources discussing him, but plenty featuring him.
With that said, the article is in need of much improvement to ensure it is accurate (as it is autobiographical) and encyclopedic. Perhaps those who have joined today to defend the article might be so kind as to stick around and help edit it. If you are unsure about anything then you can post a draft to the talk page. The most useful thing is reliable sources, which experienced editors will be happy to reference when writing and citing content. Testem (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few places that are lacking citations and that presumably should be easy to correct if there truly is a wealth of material on him. LaMona (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Foucault Michel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.139.20 (talk) [reply]
— 5.249.112.75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep I hear about Andreas Antonopoulos all the time on every resource I read, that's why I'm pretty sure that he's notable person. He has been featured in many events on YouTube and Bitcoin community is always refers to his concepts, he's more likely to be the one who's was the voice of Bitcoin - I saw many places where community experts are referencing to him, because he's the one who introduced basic philosophy to rely upon for millions forth. I'm personally don't really believe in Bitcoin, but at the same time I seeing Andreas now on every Internet page related to crypto's & I'm using that info, that's why Wikipedia should keep his page or at least some place which explain his concepts he covered. The article should be improved, but not deleted. I'm wikipedia member since 2009 (my most popular nicknames in public are efxco, earlfox) so you can easily check that I'm not singed up to pump this page Fanees (talk) 2:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
— Fanees (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - 92.25.139.20 (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This deletion discussion is mentioned at [2]
  • Delete - Bitcoin has always seemed to be a minor fad to me, but we'll see. Notability is permanent, in a couple of years, nobody may remember what bitcoin was. There is no need for Wikipedia to pump this up. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Andreas Antonopoulos' presence in the bitcoin community is notable if for no other reason than as seminal history. He is a prominent figure for the decentralized movement and has spoken on many occasions about the subject. Wikipedia is itself a decentralized movement according to the decentralization page. The move to delete his Wikipedia page is a ploy and we are the pawns.Noisavni (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Noisavni (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - 92.25.139.20 (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm one of the developers of the Bitcoin reference software (and a long time Wikipedia editor) and probably wouldn't know who this person was outside of using reddit; the result of the relative obscurity is that the Wikipedia article is pretty much guaranteed to be inaccurate and misleading. For example, the article falsely claims that the subject served on the board of the Bitcoin Foundation (he never has), it also falsely claims that he contributed to several software projects (bitaddress, ethereum, etc.) which he has not. etc. To those coming in from reddit being asked to mob this discussion: Having a wikipeida article about you is no kindness, the majority of people I know who have articles about them that I've discussed it with have considered it to be a negative effect on their lives, and the impact is more negative the more niche the interest around you is as the article becomes more distorted and inaccurate the sparser the coverage becomes. Wikipedia has a fairly high bar for articles on living people both to protect both the readers and the subject and to preserve the maintainability of the project. I was surprised to find that there was an article on this subject, but not surprised that it was only a couple weeks old and proposed for deletion. There appear to basically be no independant / secondary sources on the subject (as opposed to simply mentioning the subject and repeating a bio the subject provided). --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The statement "There appear to basically be no independant / secondary sources on the subject (as opposed to simply mentioning the subject and repeating a bio the subject provided)" seems questionable. There is a multitude of secondary sources. Naturally, most of them are focused on cryptocurrency, but there are examples of more general secondary sources, such as PandoDailyRedpointist (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, I hadn't seen the pandodaily article, ... it's a relatively poor source as it has many factually incorrect claims, e.g. claims that the subject is a "Bitcoin developer". Bummer. But again, this is par for the coarse for folks who are only well known in some narrow field; and it means the article is doomed to be inaccurate (if we're luckly) and libelous if we're not... and a single example is not "a multitude".--Gmaxwell (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The "multitude" of secondary sources includes those that are bitcoin specific publications, of which there are MANY . Just because a source focuses on bitcoin doesn't invalidate it as a source. The notability guidelines call for sources that are "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." Google Andreas Antonopolous and you will find a multitude of articles written by bitcoin related news sites that are in fact independent from him. Also, the fact that Pando refers to him, among other things, as a "bitcoin developer" doesn't disqualify it as a source. You might use the term to mean a "bitcoin core developer" when others might use the term more loosely, bitcoin being a distributed system, to mean someone contributing to the bitcoin software ecosystem as a whole, such as by working on blockchain.info security issues. Redpointist (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am not complaining that sources "focuses on bitcoin", I mean they are litterally writing about Bitcoin and not about the subject matter of this article (Andreas Antonopoulos) to the extent that they say much anything about him at all most quote directly from his published bio-blub (No fault of theirs', after all those articles weren't about him, the articles are about Bitcoin). WRT Pando, "to mean someone contributing to the bitcoin software ecosystem as a whole", is what I'm referring to. I'm not aware of any Bitcoin network or ecosystem software development he's contributed to (you'll note there are 'sourced' claims in the WP article, but I pointed out here that they're incorrect, stemming from mishandling primary sources).--Gmaxwell (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Do you not think that as Chief Security Officer of blockchain.info he contributed anything to the blockchain.info software? Is blockchain.info not part of the bitcoin ecosystem? Regarding your claim that Andreas is not the main topic of any of any of these multitudes of secondary sources, let me provide some examples: Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Redpointist (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • He did not (a significant portion of their service is on github so you can see the updates; and he was not responding to security reports or other issues). The citations you're giving are about Bitcoin, not about Andreas-- the first is about the Bitcoin foundation. The only statement of fact expressed about Andreas in the body of the article is 'That’s why it should come as little surprise that Andreas Antonopoulos doesn’t want to have “even the smallest association with the Bitcoin Foundation.”', though there are a good half dozen statements of fact about the Bitcoin Foundation. Similar for your second article, beyond the point that he spoke to the Canada’s Senate you cannot extract any facts about Andreas from the article, because he wasn't the subject of the article. --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • Perhaps it would be better to say that he oversaw a team of developers in his role. The point being that ultimately I have seen CNN make much more ambiguous or misleading statements about very notable topics. Also, I think its a stretch to say an article isn't about Andreas when an action that Andreas took is the title of the article itself. The fact that the article may go on to address what led up to the action or to explain something about bitcoin is irrelevant. I can clearly learn things about Andreas from the articles in question. Infact, from example 3, I've learned that Andreas has a Visa credit card. A source does not have to be a biography of a person to be about a person.Redpointist (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've been expanding this article all day. I added the part about his commits to Ethereum because he did make commits to the project. His github profile shows the repositories he contributed to, and it is linked in the reference. Quintin3265 (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You do not appear to be familiar with the primary source material (i.e. the github interface). Please refrain from making your edits about his code contributions, as it implies an expertise that does not appear to exist in any public record. Midnightmagi (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The information on github is incorrect, feel free to pull the actual ethereum-cpp repository and check for yourself. There are no commits to him from it inside it. Likewise for bitaddress (There is an actual commit in buttercoin although it was limited to in the OSX homebrew build documentation). I believe github leave those markers on the profile if you leave a comment. This is a fine example of someone being not well known enough that you're forced to use primary sources, with the inherent problems that come from not really understanding primary source material. Andreas contributes to the Bitcoin ecosystem in other ways, he is not as far as I can tell, a technical expert or sofware developer (or at least I don't believe I've ever seen software contributions from him on any publically available Bitcoin project). --Gmaxwell (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator noted that "Most supporting statements/references will come from bit coin community "magazines" and "news" sites," but a quick scan of the references (used appropriately) shows that accepted secondary sources such as PC World, NY Times, Fortune, Biz Journal, Oreilly, and Pando are used, in addition to the objectionable "topic specific" sources. I see that GMaxwell (bitcoin dev) and Andreas Antonopoulos have both agreed with the AfD proposal, but possibly for the wrong reasons (see above and a post at reddit.com). This article seems to easily meet WP:GNG. Calebb (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are the wrong reasons you're accusing me of? If you're referring to the remark that it's not doing the subject a favor--, I left that for fans that are flooding in from Reddit who though the proposed deletion was a slight against someone they like; it's not my motivation (I was a Wikipedia editor long before I started writing the Bitcoin software...). The secondary sources I've seen are not articles about the subject, they're ones mentioning the subject (e.g. quoting him). Not the same thing. In terms of being able to write a useful article we secondary sources about that articles subject in order to parse and contextualize primary source material. Am I missing one? Cheers.--Gmaxwell (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gmaxwell There is an article about Andreas Antonopolous on PandoDaily PandoDailyRedpointist (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment It seems to me that, barring some strange circumstance, this article is going to be kept due to lack of consensus. I think I've added about eight sources, including places like the NY Times, just in the past hours. Deletionists can possibly argue that bitcoin isn't an important area, but it's difficult to state that Antonopolous is un-notable in bitcoins because there are articles all over about him. If bitcoin is important, then Antonopolous is important, and if bitcoin is "marginal," then Antonopolous is as well. Quintin3265 (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, you've littered the article with "sources" which aren't even about the subject of the article. :( And along the way there is _still_ a bunch of misinformation (with helpful 'sources' which are themselves incorrect or misapplied, giving a whole air of truthyness to the misinformation), even after I specifically pointed it out. I don't mean it as an insult, but this is actually a perfect example of the kind of subject matter that wikipedia is not structurally equipted to handle, and exactly why there is a bar for inclusion. --Gmaxwell (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment If you perceive problems with the facts, then why not change them yourself? I tried to follow the sources as closely as possible, but if you see something that is wrong, then you should correct it. There are still issues that need to be fixed with it, but I have to manage my mining pool and I'm not supposed to be a one-man editing team. Look at the article as it read at this time yesterday and see the progress. Something in the article being wrong isn't a reason for deleting it; multiple editors exist to correct each other's mistakes. It seems to me that it would be a better use of time simply correcting the mistakes than pointing them out to people here. Quintin3265 (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— XDexus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.139.20 (talk) [reply]
  • Keep Andreaus is frequently a panelist at conferences, is featured as commentator on television programs, he is interviewed in newspapers, magazines and other media. It is a benefit that people can look him up and find more information on who he is and what his other work is. The benefits of deleting him would be ??? Saving a little bit of disk space? I don't get it. Jreighley (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Jreighley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC) (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.139.20 (talk) [reply]
No disk space is saved by deleting an article, nor would it matter if any were. Rather, the hope is to improve the quality of information available to people as well as protecting the subject from misinformation and libel by covering less prominent subjects as part of other articles where they can be better expressed in context and better curated, or not at all. It takes real time an effort to maintain a wikipedia article and it isn't generally possible to do a good job of it if there is not a good set of secondary sources available. Right now, even though the article is receiving more attention then will likely be paid to it even again, it still contains many obvious inaccuracies, and a lack of available source material means that its unlikely that they'll be fixed in any persistent way.--Gmaxwell (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, through the use of the multitude of secondary sources, I corrected the inaccuracy in the article stating that Andreas served on the board of the Bitcoin Foundation. He actually served as the head of the anti-povery committee. If there was a lack of secondary sources, this would not have been possible for me to do.Redpointist (talk) 05:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, this is good for bitcoin Countered (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Appears to be a relative new comer to the Bitcoin scene as evidenced by the references provided to support his entry. Prior to 2013 his activities seem to be within the field of online privacy and IT security generally. A check on the history of articles by him for IT World Canada ([3]) , Network World ([4]), Info World ([5]) and PC World ([6]) shows this. This ended some time in late 2011 after which he seems to have reinvented himself as an expert on Bitcoin. Lancer2K (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pretty much per GMaxwell. Even if you discount the idea that the article will inherently be inaccurate, the fact is that outside of the very specific topic area and the fawning sycophants that cover it on Reddit, this man is non notable and one speech plus a book doesn't change that. If he gains notability then there is absolutely no technical limitation to either undeleting and expanding or creating a new article for him, but until then this article should be deleted. Cat-fivetc ---- 10:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I read lots of Bitcoin articles, watch many videos on the subject and follow relevant Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency news. Antonopoulos always crops up here. If I had to name 3 major experts on cryptocurrencies then I would probably think of him first. Afterwards probably Satoshi Nakamoto himself (obviously he doesn't publically talk much on the subject), Vitalik Buterin (less well known). Actually if you put "Bitcoin" into Youtube, Antonopoulos crops up in the 3th, 7th and 15th results based on relevance. So if Bitcoin is to be allowed at all on Wikipedia then I can't see why he wouldn't be featured. Trying to keep this objective rather than a war of pro vs anti-Bitcoin camps. Nibinaear (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out in other comments here, a person simply being quoted by an article doesn't mean that the article said anything substantive about the person in question, usually not. Go actually look at your search results. --Gmaxwell (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andreas_Antonopoulos&oldid=1146669257"