Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Voorhees (2nd nomination)

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 keep‎. I see a consensus that this article should be Kept although it's sourcing could be improved (as is the case with many articles). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Voorhees

AfDs for this article:

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He's had executive roles at a number of crypto-related companies and exchanges but only Shapeshift looks notable, and it doesn't look like he meets WP:GNG either. Probably either delete or redirect to Shapeshift. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a number of high quality RS on the article (Bloomberg, New Yorker, Venturebeat, etc) and mentioned a lot of times in Google books search. Article lacks depth, but doesnt seem to lack notability and thus meets WP:GNG. For example this FT piece quotes him 3x in relation to his views on cryptocurrency, without mention of shapeshift. Business Insider lists him as #3 crypto influencer. I added a couple of sources to the article to add evidence of notability. Plenty of mainstream coverage here separate from this former (and now defunct) firm shapeshift. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like either passing mentions in articles about other topics or quotes from him, neither of which help him to meet GNG. Are there any RSes that talk about him at length (especially if they aren't about ShapeShift)? BuySomeApples (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I found one pretty easily after you asked. Have you done a google search for this subject prior to nomination? I simply just searched for "eric voorhees biography" and got this from forbes (a biographical and apparently in depth piece). Assuming you have done a basic google search prior to this nomination, the problem with these article subjects in cryptocurrency is that they generate so much press that is low quality, it somewhat drowns out the RS, and forbes staff writer is RS btw. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's much better! Thank you for finding that, if you can replace some of the passing mentions with more sources like that then I think this might work. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for depth, he was one of the personalities featured in the film The Rise and Rise of Bitcoin, as well as two other films, according to IMDB . In looking around for more RS (and depth), I have found and added some other content that also would not make sense with a merge to Shapeshift, such as the SatoshiDice content (article subject founded satoshi dice which accounted for half of bitcoin volume at one point in time), nor the article subjects recent notable comments (picked up in books & press) relating to his opposition for crypto-regulation (comments were made in reaction to Sam Bankman-Fried's comments). As for notability the article checks all the boxes, featured in films (as himself), mentioned in books published large publishers, WSJ, FT, Forbes, Ars Technica, Reuters, New Yorker, etc all in varying levels of depth of coverage. Google search replies with 1M+ results (of course many are not RS). Its an article for improvement issue, not a GNG issue and the article will improve over time, like most do generally speaking. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find something other than WP:IMDB for the movies? Right now the only great source imo is Forbes. FT is decent depth but is about shapshift. WSJ is a single mention and Ars Technica, Reuters, and New Yorker have 1 quote each so not sigcov. The VentureBeat article about SatoshiDice raising money is a maybe. The book refs don't have page numbers so I'm not sure if they have in depth coverage of him or quotes/single mentions like some of the articles. BuySomeApples (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We dont have to see sigcov from every source, we will see it in some and not others. As Moem-Meom (talk · contribs) says below, there is also sigcov in some wsj sources as well. When I added the books to the article, I also added the url of the book mention. For example in this diff you will see in edit summary I added a link to google books, to make it easier to WP:V. An example that we are facing a blue sky issue is this source in Fortune, where the source's title is "Sam Bankman-Fried, Erik Voorhees and the battle for crypto’s soul", and this tells us that the opinion of Voorhees is sufficiently notable to Fortune's readers (as compared to SBF's opinion) that they write a piece on it. Nothing about shapeshift here, only about positions on current events (in that case crypto regulation). As for sources, for the movie Banking on Bitcoin, I found the article subject's name also listed at appletv and at primevideo and the movie Bitcoin Beyond the Bubble is in tvguide. I didnt add those to the article, as they might not be RS. Your characterizations of passing mention and single quotes doesnt address the fact that the subject appears in three movies as himself, nor does it address that he is commonly quoted on current event issues unrelated to shapeshift, and probably is inaccurate in itself as both Moem-Moem and I are disputing your passing mention assertions as well. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, Internet, Panama, United States of America, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and ANYBIO and good enough media coverage that helps to establish a notability and write a decent bio page. Moem-Meom (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently conducted research and discovered comprehensive media coverage by the Wall Street Journal, which has not been previously used on the page. I have already added this material. For instance this WSJ investigation is really huge, and devoted to Voorhees personality and money laundering and crypto related topics. https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-dirty-money-disappears-into-the-black-hole-of-cryptocurrency-1538149743 Here is another WSJ significant coverage (https://www.wsj.com/articles/firm-tied-to-cryptocurrency-entrepreneur-faces-sec-investigation-1542319602?mod=Searchresults_pos2&page=1) deeply describing both Voorhees and his company. Voorhees was mentioned nearly 40 times across both articles. These coverages are not just cursory mentions akin to 'Mr. X said...', but rather they provide in-depth analyses. Moem-Meom (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf I hope my vote and comment will help. To be frank, I was inspired by your arguments. Moem-Meom (talk) 12:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has become a reference in the industry and is often cited. He made a very important BTC transaction in early crypto days (2013). As per Business Insider, listed Voorhees at #3 on their list of crypto influencers. As well as being featured in a significant piece in Forbes [1] referring to him as Bitcoin’s Last Gunslinger. He has been mentioned and featured in man other reputable media such as The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, Business Insider, Ars Technica, Reuters, The New Yorker and CNN Money. Very clear establishment of WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Lethweimaster (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I'm seeing problems with the sourcing here. Information has citations which do not directly support these claims. For example, this source was used for his career in the "communication sphere" saying he previously worked at something called Podium Group and Better Homes. In addition to being far too much like a resume, the source says nothing at all to support this. This kind of bland trivia with tacked-on sources is usually a sign of WP:COI or even WP:AUTOBIO editing. I would suggest carefully reviewing these sources, even the paywalled ones, before !voting. Grayfell (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you have corrected those issues in your recent series of edits. You also removed the text stating " 126,315 bitcoins, equivalent to $11.5 million at the time" and changed to simply the USD value, in this diff. I am guessing this is one of the largest bitcoin transactions in history, so why you would think that is trivia? An editor above mentioned the article subject's notability was in part tied to making such as large transaction, while you feel it is trivia. Seems a large gulf in opinions, maybe you might explain. While it is possible that this article (like many) has had COI edits at some point in time, I do not presently see any editors doing that, and for purposes of avoidance of doubt (in case your comment was directed towards me or someone else in this thread), I have no COI with the article subject, his past employers, etc. Do you see any other problems with the sourcing? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to look at the subject objectively: the guy is an early adopter of Bitcoin, pioneered the space and has become a reference in the world of cryptocurrency. We can clean up sources that we feel are promotional or trivial, but in my opinion only with the pieces on Wall Street Journal and Forbes the subject's notability is clearly established through WP:GNG. Lethweimaster (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that saying he "pioneered the space" is "objective", we may have other problems. I do not accept that these sourcing problems have been fixed. Look at what sources are actually saying. Do not write WP:BACKWARDS. Do not fill-in promotional first-hand knowledge about "the world of cryptocurrency". That doesn't belong on Wikipedia.

What an editor guesses is important is irrelevant. The specific quantity of bitcoin is not automatically relevant to this biography, and context comes from sources, not editors. For all sources, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, so the mere existence of these sources is not enough to claim GNG. If you want to use these sources to claim notability, you have to summarize what they actually say. I notice that the WSJ source is the first in the article, but nowhere in the article is money laundering even mentioned. This tells us the article is not being cited for facts, it's being used to prop-up the article. I assume whoever cited that source has full access to it. That editors should summarize what it actually says about Voorhees. Grayfell (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please advise the specific sourcing problems so we can address them. The money laundering claim is interesting as well, do we have something for that? I read the SEC fine was for the shares offering (I think the subject was selling shares in satoshidice, but dont quote me on that). Was he also cited for money laundering? I dont have a paywall account right now for wsj. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf @Grayfell I have a paywall to WSJ and there is a significant and great coverage with many critics of course. I've added this to the lead paragraph of the page, including references to money laundering, North Korean hackers, etc. Hope the page is balanced now. Moem-Meom (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2024 (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.