David Gokhshtein: Not elected to office, not feted widely in media, no track record of significant entrepreneurialism and all sourced to Fox blurbs, owned media and interview.  Fails WP:GNG.  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 13:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Websites ,  and United States of America .  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 13:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Hits in Gnews all talk about crypto, so I suspect this is some sort of promotion.  Back to the article, being a member and writer for the Forbes Council is non-notable; we don't consider it a RS, so being a writer for it would not help.  Rest is non-notable.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Kindly read the article again.  It is clearly non promotional. .  Corrugateboard ( talk ) 15:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It helps boost Google Search results, so does help promote it.  SEO is a concern.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As per WP:HEY please check again as has been significantly updated Rescendent ( talk ) 07:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Should now pass via WP:SNG on WP:BASIC notability via academic WP:SOURCETYPES Rescendent ( talk ) 04:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New York .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - I'm new here and don't know what people say to win arguments.  He's an expert in his field and I am under the impression that Wikipedia is for experts in their professions even when we don't agree with the profession or the profession doesn't align with our personal convictions.  I'm saying keep Corrugateboard ( talk ) 15:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC) — Corrugateboard ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] We aren't here to win, we're looking for reliable sources to use in the article, showing notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Crypto-crap.  Though the sheer number of GHits makes searching difficult, I could not find any WP:SIGCOV about him in reliable sources after a thorough-ish search.  As he did not contest the congressional primary, I'm don't think redirection there is a valid WP:ATD .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 19:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Crypto-crap" is a little WP:IDONTLIKEIT ?  Are multiple hits in GBooks and GScholar either for his name or analysing his twitter account 'davidgokhshtein'.  So it can be highlighted that academic research has recognized David Gokhshtein's notable influence within cryptocurrency social media circles.  For instance, in the study analyzing Electra's Twitter community, Gokhshtein is identified as one of the most influential actors, underscoring his recognized position within this domain.  This evidence contributes towards establishing his notability, as it reflects a level of significance and impact in the cryptocurrency community, thereby warranting his inclusion on Wikipedia.  I have added additional references to the page to the books and journals he is analysed in.  Rescendent ( talk ) 07:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  Wikipedia is not "for experts in their professions" per se — if all it took to get into Wikipedia was for the article to say that the person was an expert without having to have their expertise independently validated by third-party reliable source coverage independent of themselves, then everybody on earth could bypass our inclusion standards just by designating themselves an "expert" in something.  So Wikipedia is for people who have the degree of reliable source coverage about them needed to pass a notability criterion .  But the sourcing here is not coverage about him for the purposes of satisfying WP:GNG — it's coverage about other things which merely quotes him as a provider of soundbite , which is not what we require.  Unelected candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates; founders of companies do not automatically get Wikipedia articles just for founding companies; and on and so forth.  Bearcat ( talk ) 01:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are multiple published papers and a Columbia University Press book which examine the influence of his twitter account about independent topics and from independent researchers; does this not establish notability?  (Have updated page with references and additional details)  Rescendent ( talk ) 07:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Expanding on above article satisfies the purpose of WP:SNG via WP:BASIC notability though analysis of his tweets in multiple independent academic sources which Wikipedia considers the most reliable WP:SOURCETYPES .  Caliskan, Koray (2022).  "Data money makers: An ethnographic analysis of a global cryptocurrency community".  The British Journal of Sociology.  73: 168–187.  doi:10.1111/1468-4446.12916 Caliskan, Koray (August 1, 2023).  "Chapter 4: Global Cryptocurrency Communities as Data Money Makers".  *Data Money: Inside Cryptocurrencies, Their Communities, Markets, and Blockchains.  Columbia University Press.  ISBN 0231209592 Guidi, Barbara; Michienzi, Andrea (2022).  "How to reward the web: the social dApp yup".  Online Social Networks and Media.  Elsevier.  31: 100–229.  doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2022.100229 Tjahyana, Lady Joanne (2021).  Brand Monitoring for Dogecoin Cryptocurrency on Twitter (PhD thesis).  Petra Christian University Schnülle, Tim (2021).  Algorithmic trading with cryptocurrencies - Does twitter sentiment impact short-term price fluctuations in Bitcoin (MSc).  Nova School of Business and Economics.  p. 49 Additionally other sources regularly mentioning, quoting and interviewing fit under "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers" WP:JOURNALIST (1.) although not as reliable sources as the academic ones.  Rescendent ( talk ) 03:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, the first is a name drop, the rest have no links.  The Guidi article doensn't mention this person at all.  The first one is on the Pubmed website, so can be read easily enough...  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As mentioned in other reply you can confirm the the Guidi article does mention when checking via handle in GScholar (as well as other papers) and WP:PAPERONLY / WP:OSO is clearly listed as WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Offline_sources_only .  However they can be confirmed via a correct GScholar search.  Rescendent ( talk ) 06:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It does not mention the individual.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It says "and davidgokhshtein , a politician and financial consultant, with great interest in all cryptocurrencies"; how is this not mentioning the individual?  Rescendent ( talk ) 18:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I do not know, you haven't linked to the papers.  The two I could read, one was trivial, other didn't mention him.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The one you are saying doesn't mention you are reading a short summary (public availability) but can confirm via the scholar search I linked and you can read the full version in the Wikipedia Library Rescendent ( talk ) 14:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - While this individual fails WP:NPOL, he does seem to be a notable figure in the cryptocurrency community and has been regarded as such by multiple independent, reliable sources.  Pat-Bassey Charles ( talk ) 08:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which reliable sources?  Curbon7 ( talk ) 21:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As per WP:SOURCETYPES > When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.  As his tweets have been studied in multiple peer-reviewed journals, an academic text book and both a PhD and MSc dissertation that pass via WP:BASIC notability?  Caliskan, Koray (2022).  "Data money makers: An ethnographic analysis of a global cryptocurrency community".  The British Journal of Sociology.  73: 168–187.  doi:10.1111/1468-4446.12916 Caliskan, Koray (August 1, 2023).  "Chapter 4: Global Cryptocurrency Communities as Data Money Makers".  Data Money: Inside Cryptocurrencies, Their Communities, Markets, and Blockchains.  Columbia University Press.  ISBN 0231209592 Guidi, Barbara; Michienzi, Andrea (2022).  "How to reward the web: the social dApp yup".  Online Social Networks and Media.  Elsevier.  31: 100–229.  doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2022.100229 Tjahyana, Lady Joanne (2021).  Brand Monitoring for Dogecoin Cryptocurrency on Twitter (PhD thesis).  Petra Christian University Schnülle, Tim (2021).  Algorithmic trading with cryptocurrencies - Does twitter sentiment impact short-term price fluctuations in Bitcoin (MSc).  Nova School of Business and Economics.  p. 49 Rescendent ( talk ) 21:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No.  The first one is literally a one-line mention in a chart, and it's a username that just happens to match the subject here (it could be anyone).  It talks about an entirely different crypto currency.  The rest have no links, so I can't evaulate them.  He's not mentioned in the Guidi article you cite either.  I'd revisit your sources, perhaps re-read them.  A name drop in an article (peer-reviewed) or not, beyond proving existence, isn't helpful.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your assertion about the 'entirely different cryptocurrency' requires clarification.  Which cryptocurrency are you referring to as different?  The mention of davidgokhshtein in diverse crypto contexts just further underscores his broader notability within the cryptocurrency community, showcasing a wide-ranging impact that extends beyond a single cryptocurrency.  This aligns with the subject's recognized persona and influence across various digital currency platforms, further warranting his inclusion on Wikipedia.  The individual academic mention you highlight, though brief, in a peer-reviewed publication, is a noteworthy acknowledgment in scholarly discourse, supplementing other evidence of his notability from the other multiple sources.  Additionally, per WP:PAPERONLY , the lack of online links to the cited offline sources does not undermine their validity or relevance in supporting notability.  You can confirm he is referred to in the Guidi article and others via Google Scholar search if you use his twitter handle: https://scholar.google.com/scholar? hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22DavidGokhshtein%22&btnG= which is entirely expected as he is a social media influencer ; though he also shows up for other papers with full name (which is just adding a space in handle).  As per WP:NBASIC the papers demonstrate multiple reliable sources, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject and as per policy: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" Rescendent ( talk ) 06:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The subject of the article is about a cryptocurrency, not about David.  David is only listed as a username in a chart.  I can't make it any clearer.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:HEY - As per WP:FIXIT I have improved layout; categorisation and extended the referencing; including multiple references in journals; dissertations and a book to his twitter handle.  The pervious focus on political candidate wasn't very notable, however isn't really the area of notability which is more the categories: Category:Social media influencers and Category:People associated with cryptocurrency Rescendent ( talk ) 08:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Although it may sound controversial freedom of speech is still protected in the USA along with Free-Press & Free Interpretation that being said anything about the tech industry you should always do your own research but not many people have the adequate knowledge or understanding on how to extract facts from fictions or in this case personal believes.  I vote for this article to stay open and not be altered or deleted in any way shape or form.  2600:6C56:6E09:2143:7529:128C:C934:6BA9 ( talk ) 09:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC) — 2600:6C56:6E09:2143:7529:128C:C934:6BA9 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] This user's sole contribution to Wikipedia...  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 06:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:TDLI : Freedom of speech isn't a reason to include.  While Wikipedia is not censored WP:NOTCENSORED it is also WP:NOTFREESPEECH and articles need to pass WP:NOTE for notability to be included.  Rescendent ( talk ) 03:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] "Freedom of speech" does not confer any entitlements to inclusion in Wikipedia in the absence of passing Wikipedia's inclusion criteria .  Bearcat ( talk ) 15:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Private speech is not protected.  Wiki is a private institution.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You may want to review wikipedia licensing, we can cut and modify articles at will as new information is added or removed.  If you want to keep a copy as-is, it should not be on wikipedia.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions , list of People-related deletion discussions , list of Journalism-related deletion discussions .  Rescendent ( talk ) 14:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions .  Rescendent ( talk ) 04:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There is a lot of stuff in the article and plenty of sources, but I can't find the in-depth coverage in reliable and verifiable sources that would be about him needed to meet the notability standard.  Most of the sources are mentions, brief interviews of him, interviews he did and tweets, but there is no support for a claim of notability, nor could I find anything more useful in a Google search.  Alansohn ( talk ) 11:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As per WP:SOURCETYPES > When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.  As his tweets have been studied in multiple peer-reviewed journals, an academic text book and both a PhD and MSc dissertation that would suggest notability via WP:BASIC ?  Other sources mentioning, quoting and interviewing fit under WP:JOURNALIST (1.) although not as reliable sources as the academia ones.  Rescendent ( talk ) 21:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They have not, the peer-reviews are about different subjects, that mention him in passing.  The first one is about a type of crypto currency, with a username that could or could not be this person.  The rest are about as useless.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] > with a username that could or could not be this person Not sure I understand your point; as a social media influencer establishing the fact that they are indeed the same person is a fairly important aspect and not something to be brushed over as "could be someone random"?  Rescendent ( talk ) 07:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] David is mentioned as a username, once.  That is not substantial coverage.  There is no proof it's the same individual (the article does not verify the identity of the username), and the subject of that article is not about David.  Being listed in a chart is not what we require for notability.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  16:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The coverage is not significant and does not pass WP:GNG .  Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 09:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is about a person so WP:SNG applies and specifically WP:BASIC and WP:JOURNALIST Rescendent ( talk ) 18:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You're not an experienced Wikipedian and it shows.  You clearly don't understand the fact that all crypto publications are basically pay for play promotional publications, and thus the consensus is that they are considered unreliable and do not count for notability.  This even includes arguably the most reliable crypto publication, CoinDesk, see WP:COINDESK , so if that doesn't count for notability, then random obscure crypto publications like "coincu", "The Coin Republic." and "Block Publisher" certainly don't.  Press releases from Gokhsteins company, being interviewed on obscure podcasts and Fox Business and having short mentions in research papers is not signficiant coverage either.  Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 19:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Multiple journals WP:SOURCETYPES , Bloomberg , Yahoo! News (non syndicated), WP:FOXNEWS (non-politics or science), WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS are all reliable sources; why are they all talking to, quoting, referring to or analysing this individual's tweets if they are non-notable?  Rescendent ( talk ) 04:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They're reliable, yes, the coverage is trivial.  Fox News I wouldn't touch, based on their admitted history of lying, but that's just me.  We need stories about this fellow, not him being mentioned in articles about something else.  No one has presented anything otherwise.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I haven't edited in a very long time and my current experience does make me understand: Sayers, Freddie (2021-12-14).  "Wikipedia co-founder: I no longer trust the website I created" .  Unheard .  ; don't worry is interview and non-reliable source :P Rescendent ( talk ) 08:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete As per the above comments; does not meet WP:GNG .  GhostOfNoMeme ( talk ) 16:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is hilarious.  You didn't even read the article.  Corrugateboard ( talk ) 18:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I did read the article, and concur with the pro-deletion points above.  I was made aware of this article because I created the SafeMoon page, to which this article now links.  I read the article, the deletion discussion, and then formed my own opinion.  If there's something specific you'd like to discuss, let me know.  I'm happy to change my opinion.  GhostOfNoMeme ( talk ) 14:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom and Bearcat. - KH-1 ( talk ) 11:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would recommend you review WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and particularly WP:PERNOM and WP:PERX as you used both and nothing else.  Rescendent ( talk ) 14:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per WP:CREATIVE#1 .  I am not a fan of cryptocurrency and the major players in it, but this subject has been cited as a key player in the crypto industry.  Even though they do not seem to pass WP:GNG , he certainly passes WP:CREATIVE as a creative professional in cryptocurrency and journalism as well.  Shoerack ( talk ) 18:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete He doesn't seem to meet any of the criterion for WP:CREATIVE#1.  His work doesn't seem to be highly cited, as I couldn't find any over 100 cites.  Industrial Insect (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:CREATIVE#1 .  It says "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors".  Either of the statements satisfied WP:CREATIVE.  It doesn't have to be both.  Shoerack ( talk ) 19:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] A cryptocurrency entrepreneur is clearly not what is meant by "creative professional" under any reasonable definition of that term.  He's a relatively minor player in cryptocurrency circles anyway, compared to someone like Vitalik Buterin or Justin Sun and cannot be considered influential.  Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 20:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How is he a "cryptocurrency entrepreneur"?  I think you are conflating two different things; that being a social media influencer/journalist with a strong cryptocurrency leaning and an entrepreneur which are not the same things.  Rescendent ( talk ) 13:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He is not widely cited by peers.  He isn't even mildly cited.  He's also a business professional, not an artistc creator.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 12:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] He is WP:JOURNALIST and founded a news/media company.  All the "soundbites" on Bloomberg News , Yahoo! News (non syndicated), WP:FOXNEWS (non-politics or science), WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS , NPR , CNBC Indonesia are being cited by his peers as each on refers to him as the founder of said news organisation.  Rescendent ( talk ) 13:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So we can't apply CREATIVE notability for JOURNALISTS.  Please select one.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Why am I selecting one about a different editors comments?  Also CREATIVE and JOURNALIST are same link (go to same place) Rescendent ( talk ) 08:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Bearcat is right that WP:GNG is not met, but GNG isn't the only notability criteria to consider here.  I am compelled by the arguments by Pat-Badsey Charles and Shoerack.  Dfertileplain ( talk ) 19:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .   The substance about this individual is not supported by reliable and thorough sourcing.  Doesn’t get over the notability bar in my judgement either.  GraziePrego ( talk ) 02:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Multiple journals WP:SOURCETYPES , Bloomberg , Yahoo! News (non syndicated), WP:FOXNEWS (non-politics or science), WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS , NPR are all reliable sources; why are they all talking to, quoting, referring to or analysing this individual's tweets if they are non-notable?  Rescendent ( talk ) 04:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You not read the nomination?  "all sourced to Fox blurbs, owned media and interview"  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 04:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Nomination was prior to WP:FIXIT Rescendent ( talk ) 04:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I certainly wouldn't call using an individual's tweets in an article "significant coverage" as per WP:BASIC , so they don't help contribute to his notability.  GraziePrego ( talk ) 04:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How is NPR having voice being just using an individual's tweets?  Domonoske, Camila (February 8, 2021).  "It Doesn't Get More Buzzy Than This: Tesla Is Investing $1.5 Billion In Bitcoin" .  NPR .  Rescendent ( talk ) 04:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even that article only has a few words from him.  That’s not substantial coverage either.  GraziePrego ( talk ) 04:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How about 10 WP:BUSINESSINSIDER articles?  https://www.businessinsider.com/metaverse-tokens-crypto-ethereum-cryptocurrency-eth-facebook-meta-david-gokhshtein-2021-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-crypto-ethereum-cardano-solana-altcoins-polkadot-chainlink-david-gokhshtein-2021-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/four-altcoins-to-buy-cryptocurrency-next-dogecoin-bitcoin-meme-economy-2021-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/ether-dogecoin-xrp-bitcoin-price-forecasts-increases-crypto-ceo-gokhshtein-2021-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/crypto-investing-bitcoin-next-move-whale-control-market-china-gokhshtein-2021-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/best-altcoins-to-buy-now-bitcoin-btc-ethereum-ether-eth-2021-12 https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/dogecoin-bull-gokhshtein-sees-shiba-inu-shooting-up-a-whopping-3200-from-here-1031356147 https://www.businessinsider.com/altcoins-to-buy-best-crypto-investment-opportunities-picks-expert-buying-advice-research https://www.businessinsider.com/altcoins-to-buy-bitcoin-btc-ethereum-eth-cryptocurrency-cardano-solana-2021-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/bitcoin-crypto-dogecoin-ethereum-all-time-high-altcoin-solana-cardano-2021-8 Rescendent ( talk ) 04:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Exactly the same as above.  GraziePrego ( talk ) 05:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, WP:BUSINESSINSIDER itself says there's no consensus on reliability of articles from them.  GraziePrego ( talk ) 05:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete ; inarguably fails NBASIC, and I refuse to cut him any slack on the other criterions due to most of these sources falling under “payed to care about him” or being interviews.  Mach61 ( talk ) 05:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Rescendent.  @ Oaktree b : .  WP:CREATIVE does apply to journalists and other creative professionals.  You may want to review WP:CREATIVE again.  Yemi festus ( talk ) 12:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I personally think it should be cleaned up thoroughly and the entire Social Media Influence subsection and Views and Advocacy section be removed.  Seeing LinkedIn as a reference here alone gives me a headache.  I had created two blockchain related articles ( this and that ) and quit contributing anything around it because the kind of sources that covers the best of works that is done on the blockchain scene would still have a tough passage on Wikipedia.  Maybe it's time we had WikiProject Blockchain to put up standards to weed out what is not acceptable.  If anyone would start that, I would be at your back.  Danidamiobi ( talk ) 22:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] May you state why you are voting keep?  Mach61 ( talk ) 23:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Because it has some coverage and I think it should be cleaned up .  Danidamiobi ( talk ) 17:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The presence of David Gokhshtein in verifiable and reliable sources, extensively covering his activities and influence within social media, attests to his notability.  This substantial coverage demonstrates that he has made a noteworthy impact within his sphere, aligning with Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline WP: GNG .  Retaining his article aligns with Wikipedia's commitment to providing comprehensive and informative content to its readers, especially in acknowledging individuals who have achieved recognition and influence in the digital age. " -- Oludegun ( talk ) 03:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: I've tagged over half a dozen accounts that have participated in this discussion, because they are infrequently active, and do not regularly participate in Afds, and most have no history about editing regarding cyrptocurrency related topics. I note for completeness that the majority of these editors appear to primarily edit Nigeria-related articles, which strikes me as odd, as I can't find a compelling connection between the subject and the country. I feel compelled to add that I don't think the presumed nationality of editors should be held against them, it just makes me suspicious that they've been directed here from somewhere else. To me the only plausible explanation seems to me to be at least some users were likely canvassed to this discussion. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 04:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is certainly an unusually 'messy' AfD... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 05:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Mr Gokhshtein is an internet and social media personality that talks about cryptocurrency. Internet and social media is global, beyond the USA, Canada, UK etc and cryptocurrency is digital (used globally too). Most social media personalities are known and have connections beyond their countries of origin or residence. For instance, This is CNBC Indonesia news article citing Mr Gokhshtein This Here is a Nigerian news article that cited Mr Gokhshtein Another one here and here There are articles in Spanish, all citing Mr Gokhshtein. I do not understand your decision to tag Nigerian  editors participating in this AfD simply because they are Nigerians. That is not nice, not nice in anyway whatsoever. Well, this is a discussion and I'll leave it at that. Corrugateboard ( talk ) 06:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to the closer: Corrugatecardboard has very few edits, and would likely quality as an WP:SPA . Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 08:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 06:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've removed these badges of shame. You shouldn't tag editors as canvassed if you have no proof just because you disagree with their opinions. There opinions shouldn't be dismissed because of conclusions you have drawn on your own. The closer can review all comments and make their decision without highlighting editors based on where you think they are from. I hope to not see this happen again. L iz Read! Talk! 05:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - @ Hemiauchenia : I found your tagging of my comment as "canvassing" disruptive. How did you come to the conclusion that I had been canvassed? If I had commented in support of "deleting" this article, would you have said that I was canvassed? That said, do not ever try to second-guess or link users to any country if they have not posted about their country anywhere on Wikipedia. It amounts to harassment to do that. You did tag the comment of the article creator as if they were canvassed too. Did you expect to take their article for deletion and have them not comment here? When we nominate an article for deletion, we expect and encourage the article creator to participate in the debate to give them a chance to explain why they think the article is notable enough to merit a stand-alone page here. And for new people, such as the creator of this article, it would provide them with an opportunity to learn more about what we consider notable. Tagging their comment as if they are canvassing in favour of your position is very disruptive, and I have taken the liberty to strike your tag on their comment and mine. Shoerack ( talk ) 06:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Admittedly my looking at your edits was cursory, and you editing patterns are a lot less suspicious than the other editors I tagged, and I still stand by those taggings. I never tagged the article creator that was someone else, and the SPA tag is perfectly valid, though I suspect their article creation was an act of UPE too. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 06:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have no opinion about others as I am not familiar with their editing history to draw any conclusion. Rescendent did not create this article; it was created by Corrugateboard. Shoerack ( talk ) 06:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't create the article; I just applied WP:FIXIT before voting since it was a new editor everyone seemed to be using WP:GHITS (in a weird way, saying too many) and WP:IDONTLIKEIT / WP:ITSCRUFT about the subject having crypto currency connections. I did initially agree was a non-notable politician; but after research found the subject was clearly notable but for a different topic and was getting an unfair WP:PPOV from politician/area editors; so sought to improve the article instead. On the other hand you suggested the article creator Corrugateboard as "certainly canvassed/UPE" and marked their vote as WP:SPA which is very WP:BITE and then proceeded to mark everyone else (except me because you thought I created it) as canvassed; but in comment also saying I am UPE. While such an accusation doesn't fall under WP:UNCIVIL it definitely doesn't WP:AGF ; where is you evidence? Rescendent ( talk ) 07:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OMG you literally tagged everyone who voted "keep" as canvassed suggesting there is no reason anyone could vote otherwise even though this AFD is on 27 wiki project pages (deletion sorting or project category) Rescendent ( talk ) 08:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sigh. Right. Here we go: Pat-Bassey Charles No presence on Wikipedia since 29 July 2023, lands at this AfD 25 September & votes Keep. Vast majority of all contributions to Wikipedia outside this AfD are directly connected with Nigerian topics. 2600:6C56:6E09:2143:7529:128C:C934:6BA9 Sole contribution to Wikipedia is a keep vote on this AfD. Dfertileplain No presence on Wikipedia since 30 June 2023, lands here 2 October, makes 5 edits within half an hour and then votes at this AfD... keep, of course. Vast majority of all contributions to Wikipedia outside this AfD are directly connected with Nigerian topics. Yemi festus Inactive since 17 August barring one edit on 28 September and then rocks up here on the 4th October with a keep vote. Over 99% of all contributions outside this AfD are directly connected with Nigerian topics. Danidamiobi Inactive since 30 August bar two edits on 19 September and one on 21 September. And then over to this AfD on  5 October with a keep vote. Vast majority of all contributions to Wikipedia outside this AfD are directly connected with Nigerian topics. I'm not going to go on. Hemiauchenia has every right to be very, very suspicious and I'll happily add my name to the list of very suspicious people. This whole AfD has been traduced by COI/UPE players - I've never seen the like of it, TBH. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 14:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I find it unlikely Yemi festus specifically was canvassed; they’re a productive editor and made a valid policy based argument Mach61 ( talk ) 16:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] IP address is Texan; however their reason doesn't really count as WP:NOTFREESPEECH ; other than that outlier Hemiauchenia and you seem mainly to be complaining about people you suspect to be Nigerians. According to Cryptocurrency in Nigeria 32% of participating Nigerians used cryptocurrencies; wiki even has a page for it; so perhaps being on WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cryptocurrency is related to Nigerian topics, idk. However using an edit gap of a couple months and that you suspect them of being Nigerian seems very WP:PREJUDICED when 3 of 4 are WP:XCON and other is WP:CONFIRM editors and fairly close to being WP:XCON . Rescendent ( talk ) 16:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Given that you suddenly started edting, after not having edited at all since 2016, solely to participate in this discussion and edit the article, you're not exactly unsuspicious either. Hemiauchenia ( talk ) 17:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are casting WP:ASPERSIONS . Can just as easily throw it back why is someone who mostly edits palaeontology articles voting on Gokhshtein a topic he has little connection to, unless canvassed? Is a bit WP:UNCIVIL to not assume WP:AGF and do that? Rescendent ( talk ) 22:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I also agree that Hemiauchenia has every right to be suspicious when a group of random editors who aren't active very often all with similar editing interests start voting the exact same option. That being said, tagging Rescendent and everyone else with a keep vote was unnecessary. Industrial Insect (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I’m a bit surprised that my efforts to stick to creating mostly articles rather than actual edits is deemed as inactivity. I had even established that I had created articles to related to this in the past and what could be done in good faith. Well. Danidamiobi ( talk ) 17:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: - Is the subject of the article a Nigerian? I would very much agree with Hemiauchenia if the topic is a Nigerian-related article. I find it weird that an American journalist would pay some random people from Nigeria to write or edit articles, much less comment on WP:AfD . The accusation of UPE is unsubstantiated and should probably be struck at this point. Do you have evidence of this accusation beyond the fact that they are from Nigeria and only comment after a few months of inactivity? I assume you do, since that is a serious accusation to make against editors who share opposing views. Evidence that is clear enough, such as being privy to who made the payment, to whom, and how much was paid? Shoerack ( talk ) 19:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This casting of aspersions and making comments about editor's possible or real ethnicities needs to stop NOW. You aren't making a persuasive argument to Keep or Delete this article by making accusations about other editors. That behavior has no place in an AFD discussion and I'm disappointed to see experienced editors indulging in this misconduct. Leave it to the closer to evaluate the strength of the arguments instead of trying to undermine othre editors. Thank you. L iz Read! Talk! 05:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] According to user:Rescendent , 32% of Nigeria's 213 million population use crypto currency. They could want to keep the article on this "crypto entrepreneur" because they use cryptocurrency themselves.  That being said, it shouldn't discount any valid arguments made.  AfD isn't a majority vote, so it shouldn't matter all too much.  Industrial Insect (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete