Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavin Andresen (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. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Andresen[edit]

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

Borderline notable and on the wrong side of the border. The article's references are primary sources except an interview about Bitcoin which was with the subject of the article. That is the only element that takes us close to the border of notability. All else is from Bitcoin itself and a blog Fiddle Faddle 06:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as lead developer of a very important phenomena. Otherwise Merge with Bitcoin. JASpencer (talk) 08:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a quick Google search reveals multiple reliable, secondary sources for this person, a search on Google news reveals even more. Here are a few examples: 1,2,3,4. Cliff12345 (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bitcoin - WP:NOTINHERITED 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 WP:BLP 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. MSJapan (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to "they are not independent of the subject", aren't the example sources I linked above (1,2,3,4) independent of the subject, as well as (with the possible exception of link 2) neutral? I agree that the current sources in the article are not very good, but we could easily add the ones I have listed above. Cliff12345 (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. 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 WP:PROF. WP:GNG 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by User:Cliff12345. There is multiple coverage by RS about the person -the fact that he's famous because of Bitcoin and he's asked about it doesn't change this fact. -- cyclopia^speak! 12:11, 14 August 2013 (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.