Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Gokhshtein

Add links
Source: 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. The assertion that the available sourcing is too thin to support this article was not particularly refuted. Being mentioned a lot is not equivalent to being covered in depth, and the assertion that most if not all proposed reliable and independent sources are indeed such brief mentions was not convincingly shown to be incorrect. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Gokhshtein

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

David Gokhshtein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

American entrepreneur, internet and media personality, and former politician - who achieves notability under none of these roles. 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:50, 30 September 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: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]
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: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 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]
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. Liz 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: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: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: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: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]
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/David_Gokhshtein&oldid=1179154043"