Michele Federici: So does not meet WP:NBASIC or WP:ANYBIO at this time (their committee membership by itself won't meet ANYBIO#1 and their software contributions noted in the article don't meet ANYBIO#2.) Skynxnex ( talk ) 20:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Cryptocurrency , Medicine , Computing , Italy ,  and Switzerland .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 20:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I recently reviewed the article and found that all the sources are available on Google, Google News, Google Scholar, and Archive.org.  The open-source contributions can be found on GitHub and in the package registries.  I disagree about ANYBIO#1 and ANYBIO#2.  Regarding #2 for example, the Bitcoin network is valued hundreds of billions; a bug in the address hashing of Bitcoin Core may have caused millions in assets to be lost forever.  Unaveraged ( talk ) 23:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Forbes is a contributor piece so not a RS, the rest are red per sourcebot.  I can't find any we can use.  4 or 5 hits in Gnews, don't appear RS or trivial mentions.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources are in fact about a soccer player, a church thing and other non-related people with the same name.  No sourcing for this person.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 01:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm genuinely baffled by the apparent bias against pages related to IT (and blockchain in particular) projects and personalities I'm experiencing on Wikipedia.  I began contributing specifically due to the industry's underrepresentation (and occasional misrepresentation) I noticed here.  However, all the related pages I've created or contributed to so far, such as those about Aave — a leading open-source DeFi platform with over 8 billion in assets deposited as of writing — and its founder Stani Kulechov — a prominent contributor in the blockchain domain — are consistently targeted and eventually deleted.  Both of those were speedily deleted overnight, denying me even the opportunity to save my work.  Jean-Philippe Aumasson's page — a renowned cryptographer, father of BLAKE3 — also recently got deleted.  Now it's happening again with this page; at least we have the opportunity for a discussion this time (also, why request deletions instead of improvements?).  Glancing at the pages created by you and other editors involved (as well as many others I see on Wikipedia), I, for example, find ones like Raina Huang (a competitive eater(?)), and Belgh Brasse (from Oaktree b ), or Banana Slug String Band and The Consuming Fire (from Skynxnex ).  These seem to have even fewer independent sources and arguably less societal or scientific relevance?  Information's perceived importance is subjective and influenced by individual perspectives and the fields or industries they belong to.  While the blockchain sector might have reputation issues, it doesn't mean everything and everyone is fraudulent.  Many individuals and entities contribute valuable work, scientific research, and genuine projects with a significant impact.  However, it seems that industry news platforms, podcasts, open-source work and contributions, and software adoption/usage aren't given due consideration here, even though they serve as foundational references in the sector.  Moreover, I suspect your search results may also be location-biased.  For instance, as I mentioned earlier, when I search on Google, I easily find in the news the sources cited, such as Inside Paradeplatz, SEBA, and CMTA, all of which are prominent authorities in Switzerland, as well as podcasts and interviews.  Unaveraged ( talk ) 00:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, we have reliable sourcing for them.  Belgh Brasse is covered in a published book on beer and there are articles in reputable newspapers for Raina.  This, not so much.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Societal relevance is a moot point, as I've said before, we have everything from cat memes to concentration camps.  Proper sourcing, you can have an article on anything.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unaveraged If you have found additional sources and coverage, please share them here or in the article.  Improving an article during AFD is a good way to help form consensus for keep.  The sources in the article, and that I could find, do not meet WP:RS for WP:N , even within the tech world.  There just barely articles about the subject that I can find.  Of the 9 sources in the page just before the AFD, [4] , I'll quickly say why I think they don't help toward notability (some of them definitely can be used as sources for information but not for notability): Co-author on an academic paper; if widely cited, or part of a larger pattern of papers, yes.  But not in this case.  Inside Paradeplatz , probably the best source but still only a passing mention Forbes seems to have no mention of the subject just a bank he worked for Twitter Space, I'm not sure how much we count an Arbitrum interview for notability but interviews in general are not weighted very much for any subject GitHub profile, could be used per WP:SELFPUBLISHED for information but since anyone can can have one, not a sign of notability crates profile, same as above One of ~20 contributors to a point release with no information why that's notable, so again, potentially for information but not notability A GitHub issue, so same as three above Some of the above could be things that might make someone notable in the Wikiedia-sense, if other people write about them and those topics.  That doesn't seem to be happening even within the niche/technical space.  So, find sources talking about/covering Federici (the more well-known the better) and please let us know.  As for why AFD instead of improvement, this article was declined at WP:AFC twice and tagged with various improvement tags over the past couple of months and you moved it into mainspace almost four months ago.  I generally fall on keeping articles (and I have voted !keep in a number of marginal-ish tech topics if memory serves) at AFD whenever I think there's a realistic change a topic might be notable.  (What articles other contributors have or have not made isn't really the issue here, see WP:OTHERSTUFF (but for the two creations of mine you mentioned, I hadn't revisited them in awhile so I was able to find and add more sources discussion/reviewing their respective topics).  Although I didn't participate in the Jean-Philippe Aumasson discussion , looking now I probably would have ! voted as a weak keep given he is an author of multiple respected books [5] , has a decent number of papers and citations [6] (compared to Federici; which isn't meant as any sort of slight against Federici).  Aumasson is generally well-regarded and known within the community, and etc.  It has has been draftified after an undeletion request and is at Draft:Jean-Philippe Aumasson and available for improvement and could be moved back to article space if notability can be shown and more sources added. ) It'd be great if there are more sources to be found and we can keep this article; I just can't find any.  Skynxnex ( talk ) 13:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I apologize for the frustration I expressed in my previous post regarding my experience and also for going off-topic by referencing and comparing other pages.  I was generally referring to all the pages I mentioned, believing they should all deserve to be part of Wikipedia.  Anyway, I found some additional resources that might help save at least this one.  For instance, a Webinar they produced with the University of Milan and CONSOB (the Italian banking authority), curated by a journalist from IlSole24Ore: link .  The recording of an event they moderated for Cointelegraph: link , and an interview by Tatiana Koffman: link .  I'd also like to point out, regarding GitHub and Cargo's profiles, that sure I understand they are generally considered WP:SELFPUBLISHED since anyone can create them.  However, the actual appreciation and use by the community can't.  The GitHub profile has published open-source work with over 700 stars, about 200 forks, and the libraries published in Cargo have over 60,000 downloads.  These statistics only refer to their public work there.  Unaveraged ( talk ) 02:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep here.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom - David Gerard ( talk ) 18:54, 28 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