Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mircea Popescu

Add links
From 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. Once the meatpuppets and sockpuppets are removed, the only "Keep" argument left is "hey, lots of sources", but as Biruitorul points out, the majority of mentions are trivial and thus do not meet the requirements of the WP:GNG. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mircea Popescu[edit]

Mircea Popescu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is essentially no coverage indicating this individual might meet WP:BIO. The vast majority of the references are either blog posts, forum posts, contracts and the like, or they do not mention Popescu at all. There are a handful of passing mentions in what seem to be slightly more reliable sources, but nothing suggests the depth needed for an encyclopedic biography. - Biruitorul Talk 03:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is mention by name in Gawker, Wired, Bloomberg News, Wall Street Journal, Hacker News, and pretty much every other venue there. You will probably have to delete all Romanian bios at this rate, because currently there doesn't exist a Romanian alive with better exposure. Check the actual references. Altus mare (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC) — Altus mare (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And Forbes, Ars Technica. Reuters. Altus mare (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • 1) "Mention" isn't enough to demonstrate encyclopedic notability. Yes, Bloomberg News "mentions" Popescu: to note that he sent an e-mail denying having broken the law. This hardly satisfies the "significant coverage" portion of WP:BASIC.
    • 2) Your other comment is nonsense. If by "exposure" you mean "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", then it's perfectly possible to write comprehensive articles about living Romanian individuals like Victor Rebengiuc, Sever Voinescu or Radu Berceanu without stuffing them with garbage. (I mean, you actually think this belongs in an encyclopedia??) - Biruitorul Talk 14:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely notable, https://twitter.com/FlitterOnFraud/status/447013452226113536 etc Jordanee155 (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC) — Jordanee155 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Striking !vote of CheckUser-verified sockpuppet of Altus mare. -- Atama頭 19:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sockpuppet. - Biruitorul Talk 14:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seeing how I'm the only vote so far, sockpuppet of who? Get over it, you didn't read the refs and jumped to conclusions. It happens, no need to push it further and embarass yourself. Jordanee155 (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Jordanee155 (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - With 39 inline citations, including information about him in The Wall Street Journal and other major newspapers, this man is quite notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • DThomsen8, I'm frankly quite disappointed to see this sort of reasoning from such an experienced user as yourself. Of the "39 inline citations", at least 23 manifestly fail WP:RS, while the remainder are at best of tangential relevance. (If another 164 links to Popescu's blog were added, would you then commend the article for its "203 inline citations"?) For instance, the Wall Street Journal article, if you actually look at it, says nothing at all about Popescu. I hope to see you come back with a more thorough, policy-based explanation of why you think the man is notable. - Biruitorul Talk 16:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above IP geolocates to Romania, home of Mircea Popescu. The post on Reddit is highly suspicious and doesn't look like something User:Biruitorul would post. It's also the only post ever made on Reddit by that account. Looks like an attempted frame job. -- GreenC 17:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the views plug-in the page in question was seen by a lot of people (262 times in the last 90 days as of this moment). Much to nobody's surprise, it generated disproportionate edits from Romanian users. This would moreover indicate notability, and while the reddit post may or may not have been originated by the AfD proponent, it also shows clear familiarity with the original article's subject among the reddit userbase. None of this is particularly noteworthy, but User:Green Cardamom's recent history did catch my eye. So, GC: what is your connection to Dave Renton, and how come a delete vote by a new user sent you into such a tailspin? By now you've dedicated more words to hounding them than is warranted, wouldn't you say?192.65.243.5 (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea who user:Biruitorul is, but on the strength of a cursory review of his user talk page it'd seem that a) he has a lengthy history of emotion-driven activity and poor interactions with other users, chiefly new users; and b) is actually Romanian, and perhaps in some relation to the Romanian Foreign service.
That said, the discussion is neither here nor there, I have no relation to either the article's subject, or any of the users involved, or with wikipedia in general. Nor do I wish to, which is the point: keep your crap off reddit. Nobody likes you, generally speaking, and the presumptuous, misguided sort of nonsense I'm responding to here is a prime example of why. Romania is a large country, populated by a lot of distinct Internet users. Comparatively, wikipedia is a small shithole populated by a lot of indistinguishable idiots. Please stop getting into everyone's day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.125.251.83 (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Green Cardamom, thank you for your comment here and at the SPI page. As you suggest, I have nothing whatsoever to do with the Reddit post. - Biruitorul Talk 17:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have taken the trouble to go through all the references. It breaks down like so: "SatoshiDice shares are traded on the MPEx bitcoin stock exchange" (Forbes) ; " S.DICE share prices on MPEX are now more than double the original IPO price." (Bitcoin Magazine) ; "SatoshiDice was listed on MPEX, a Romanian Bitcoin securities exchange" (Venture beat, multiple other references by name) ; "traded on MPEx, the Romanian Bitcoin securities exchange" (Coindesk) ; "it was publicly traded on MPEX, a Bitcoin denominated stock exchange" (Lightspeed Venture Partners) ; "Omul de afaceri Timisorean Mircea Popescu" which Google translates as "Businessman Timisoara Mircea Popescu" (Cotidianul, seems to be a major Romanian daily) ; "t a Romanian Bitcoin billionaire" (Slashdot, front page) ; "El responsable de MPEx Bitcoin, Mircea Popescu, ha decidido aportar el dinero que necesita el proyecto OpenSDB" (siliconweek) ; "Mircea Popecu, un millonario rumano, ha decidido patrocinar OpenBSD" (unocero) ; "Mircea Popescu, Romanian creator of the MPEx Bitcoin stock exchange" (Ars Tehnica) ; "Mircea Popescu, the creator of the MPEx Bitcoin stock exchange" (hacker news) ; "Le roumain Mircea Popescu fondateur de mpex et détendeur d'un tel nombre de Bitcoin qu'il en serait milliardaire" (linuxfr) ; "že rumunský miliardár Mircea Popescu" (linux-mint-czech) ; "Mircea Popescu. Image: Courtesy Mircea Popescu" (Wired) "On the website bitbet, which is basically a bitcoin-based version of PaddyPower, one bitcoiner has placed a wager aimed squarely at the Oracle of Ohama: that bitcoin will outperform Class A shares of Berkshire Hathaway" (WSJ) ; "Mircea Popescu, the MPEx operator to whom the letter was addressed, confirmed its receipt in an e-mail to Bloomberg News" (Bloomberg) ; " The agency sent MPEx operator Mircea Popescu a letter" (engadget) ; "The owner of the exchange, a Romanian man named Mircea Popescu, declined." (Gawker). Other references provide support tangentially. The notion that this person is not be notable is indefensible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.65.243.5 (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The footnotes seem to establish sufficient coverage to definitely establish notability worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic reference. Media references to him seem likely to be sustained into the future so long as Bitcoin remains relevant. It should also be noted the the Romanian language sources that mention him do not detract from the notability. He's attracted substantial interest in the Romanian language space in the past and has been gathering a lot of notice in the English language space. Since he doesn't seem to be slowing down on doing big thing or on attracting big headlines, criticism on the basis on notability sounds weak. Mr Wave (Talk - Contribs) 02:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • While Mr Wave is not a single-purpose account, I do note that aside from a burst of AfD activity in August-September 2012, this is his only AfD participation, and his only edit period since November 2012, so this vote is a bit suspect.
      • I know enough of Wikipedia to know it isn't about votes. It is about discussion. I rarely have enountered AfDs on topics of interest, and rarely felt compelled to offer edits. The guy makes headlines. From what I can tell he runs what seems to be one of the largest concerns in Bitcoin. Mr Wave (Talk - Contribs) 03:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In any case, your argument fails on the merits.
      • Airy pronouncements about what "seems" to be the case cannot substitute for specific evidence of notability in specific sources, which you have plainly failed to cite. Moreover, any references to the future are to be discounted, per WP:CRYSTALBALL.
        • To quote from the afore referenced Amir Taaki AfD, "The nominator misstates WP:GNG and WP:OUTCOMES. Sufficient citations of a good quality throw the burden of proof onto the nominator, by presuming notability. The nomination has not stated why a presumptively notable person's article should be deleted, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT". That discussion centered around one mention in one not particularly notable, non English, purpose-made interview. The result of that debate was Keep. What you have here is a dozen or so mentions in definitely notable, English sources, spanning a number of years - definitely 2009, 2014. There is nothing factual supporting weasel words like "airy pronouncements", and claiming the OP has "failed to cite" is beyond ludicrous. You have failed to cite, or even make a serious attempt of considering the facts of the matter.
      • The only remotely reliable source presented is this. Setting aside the unconventional format - a scan that happens to have Popescu's name underlined - it does nothing in terms of notability. It informs us that Popescu filed a legal complaint against Eugen Simion. Last I checked, filing a legal complaint was generally not grounds for being considered notable.
        • In the sense the only proof we have for the existence of single cell organisms is buttermilk, the only reliable source presented is the one you reference. For the rest of the world, there's the dozen or so reliable sources such as Bloomberg, WSJ or Gawker referenced in the article.
          • As soon as you bring up specifics, any argument for keeping the article falls apart.
    • Gawker is a blog. It is not to be cited, per WP:SPS.
    • As I pointed out a week ago, the WSJ article does not mention Popescu at all.
    • Bloomberg tells us that Popescu received an e-mail and responded to that e-mail via a chat message. A billion people do that every day. True, not all of them are mentioned for it by Bloomberg, but there's no convincing argument to say that this particular e-mail receipt by Popescu adds to his notability. Since, as an IP who just started editing, you're surprisingly familiar with the workings of Wikipedia, surely you know about this project not being designed for routine news coverage? - Biruitorul Talk 13:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • So, yes, airy pronouncements about how notable Popescu is are not enough for this discussion, and once the discussion turns to specifics, the case remains equally weak. Just throwing out names like WSJ isn't enough, when it turns out those citations are worthless. - Biruitorul Talk 13:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The rest of your comment is equally non-specific: "gathering a lot of notice", "doing big thing [sic]", "attracting big headlines" are largely vapid phrases that do not tell us just why the man is notable. - Biruitorul Talk 02:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - But see below: Mr. Popescu is a well-known and controversial figure in the Bitcoin community - and perhaps the only one among such figures who has not, to date, been disgraced by association with infamous fraud artists. In addition to running his several businesses (described in detail in earlier comments, as well as on his own site) he devotes considerable time and resources to exposing the frauds and swindles which have unfortunately become commonplace in the cryptocurrency field. To take one example, Popescu predicted the acrimonious bankruptcy of the MtGox Bitcoin Exchange - and of a number of other questionable ventures - providing ample warning, months in advance, to anyone who would listen. What James Randi is to paranormal quacks and faith healers, Popescu is to the numerous con artists who bear much responsibility for the still somewhat-poor public image of cryptocurrency as a concept. This being said, I'm not certain if he wishes to be included in a Wikipedia biography, if the facts described here or in earlier comments qualify him for inclusion, or, for that matter, whether he confirms the accuracy of the statements found in this page. Perhaps someone should ask him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asciilifeform (talk • contribs) 02:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Another long-dormant account activated specifically for this AfD... - Biruitorul Talk 02:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is a manual page specifying a minimal frequency of contribution to Wikipedia in order to not count as a spammer, I would appreciate a link.... - asciilifeform — Preceding undated comment added 02:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes there is one, and your lawyering of wikipedia rules seems to indicate that you have created socks with a very specific purpose in mind. Dahn (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe look into WP:BEFORE while at it. As I'm sure you're well aware, it mandates that before an AfD is filed the nominator must make a reasonable attempt to source the article. Somewhat strange that reasonable attempt would have failed so unreasonably.
          • Nonsense. What WP:BEFORE actually says is that one should check for the validity and relevancy of sourcing in the text (which has been done, and has exposed the matter of WP:NOTNEWS), and advises one to see if additional sources do exist, and if they are relevant enough to warrant a reconsideration. WP:BEFORE even suggests the outlets where this verification might be attempted, and they are similarly posted at the top of every nomination: Google Books, Google Scholar, and so on. Is Mircea Popescu's biography in any way covered by relevant sources not found in the article, particularly by scholarly sources? No. Is Mircea Popescu's biography even covered properly by the sources now cited in the article? No -- in fact, several don't even refer to him at all, and many are not in fact citable sources. At this point in time, and in the foreseeable future, any of the stuff that would make this an actual encyclopedia entry could only ever be sourced through original research -- meaning that the sourcing as it is, with all the irrelevancies and trivialities already in there, only goes to cover two or three events in Popescu's life, all of them fleeting, all of them foldable into the text of any other article that would deal with the events themselves -- should we ever even need such articles. I want to be clear that I am not debating this with single-purpose accounts bent on servicing Mr. Popescu's vanity, or whatever; I am stating this clearly for the benefit of all readers who may not have yet figured out what's being attempted here. Dahn (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oh gawd. Just look at the article -- if there is anything in't that doesn't say puff-piece, let me know. Dahn (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did Biruitorul ask you to come vote here? Your mutual preoccupation with fringe Romanian topics (nationalism, antisemitism and whatnot) is just a little odd that's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.88.242 (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Instead of attempting stalking, why don't you just go and start another fake reddit thread -- seeing that, either way, you're a hair's breadth from having yourself and all your puppet armada blocked from wikipedia? Dahn (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • You don't intimidate me. I have no idea why you're trying to, either.
  • Comment While allowing Biruitorul and his merry band of Romanian Special Interest Friends to scare away new contributors and try to intimidate established users is definitely unencyclopedic but may well be unavoidable, allowing them to control what content is added to Wikipedia seems both against public interest and entirely avoidable. Perhaps a thorough review of the sort of the generally obstructive and in parts despicable behavior displayed on this page as well as throughout their histories is in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.88.242 (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, seems things are getting a bit heated here...let's all WP:AGF, yeah? In regards to this article, I don't know if the person himself is too well-covered by some of the sources (such as this one I found)....but why can't the article be Renamed to MPEx? That's what the more reliable sources (Bloomberg, etc.) are covering - not the man behind it, but what this man created. GRUcrule (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The sock puppet investigation has confirmed two accounts attempting to influence this AfD and the accounts have been blocked "because they misused the sockpuppet to influence a deletion discussion". See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Altus_mare/Archive for more information. -- GreenC 20:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable and poor quality sourcing. -- GreenC 20:40, 2 April 2014 (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/Mircea_Popescu&oldid=1084328970"