Deletion of Gavin Andresen (2nd nomination)

Comment: I found this through Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators but he does not seem to be even close to the notability guidelines in .  is closer, but the Forbes article used as a source here has very little about Andresen himself, and although there are other sources of similar quality out there (e.g. in Google news archive) I didn't find anything more substantial
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG)

Comment: with Bitcoin -  applies, and while there are sources, they fail GNG because they are not independent of the subject, and possibly not neutral, either.  The technology may be notable (and I'm skeptical of that because it only has market penetration in very specific areas; it's still very much a fad) but notability is not inherited.  If everything Andresen is mentioned in is Bitcoin-related, than it's really about Bitcoin, not about Andresen as a biographical subject.  Note that  guidelines are very different than people seem to think - interviews with a subject published in a newspaper are reliable, but as the majority of the info is coming from the subject directly, reliability is questionable (Andrew W.K. is a good example of what can happen there), and most certainly the sources are not independent of the subject
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:BLP)