Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Gerard (author)

Previous AfDs for this article:

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. There is a decent consensus to keep from editors arguing Gerard meets NAUTHOR or NBASIC. (non-admin closure) SWinxy (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard (author)[edit]

[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)

None of the sources are about him as a person and I can not find any which do. There are a bunch of passing mentions, there are things about his books, there are quotes from him in various pubs, but nothing that passes the GNG. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there are quotes from him in various pubs, having now done a WP:BEFORE, I don't think that is a good-faith comment. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment References don't need to be about an author "as a person" in order to satisfy the relevant wiki-notability guideline. Authors are noteworthy because of their books. An encyclopedia article about an author should discuss their contributions to the world, not their favorite ice-cream flavor. XOR'easter (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You still need a minimal amount of biographical information to write an article. If there is coverage of Attack of the 50-foot Blockchain, we should have an article on it instead of shoehorning an article about the author (who we can say very little about). -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we could refactor the page to be about the book instead of the author, but we do have things to say about the author. Declaring that his activities as a Wikipedia contributor and administrator aren't "biographical information" makes no sense to me. We have one book that meets WP:NBOOK, another that has at least gotten noticed [1][2], and descriptions of other activities. That's at the very least a good start towards a biography. XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom that the sources don't provide coverage of him as a person. I'm on the fence with how much the book(s) contribute to meeting WP:NAUTHOR, but lean towards no. FWIW, I'm a fan of the book, and would vote keep if I thought the sourcing/bio info was there, but I'm not seeing it right now. CarringtonMist (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His own website list of book reviews supports NAUTHOR (and I think the amount of high quality RS quoted his opinions (e.g. WPO, Guardian), supports NBASIC. In crypto, this guy is notable. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NAUTHOR is satisfied: criteria include The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). Just looking at Attack of the 50 foot blockchain, it's throwing up over 13,000 ghits for me, including mentions/reviews in the Financial Times, Al Jazeera, Wired, and The Guardian. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and United Kingdom. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Even if this article subject is non-notable, some of the prose on the first book might be worth using in an article on that book. Is it possible to draftify with instructions to re-write under a different title? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gerard is often cited as an authority on cryptocurrency in news articles, as to whether that makes him wiki-notable, i'm not sure, but I don't think it's a slam-dunk delete. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think he had a good case for NAUTHOR. His book is being quoted in UK Parliament Select Committees, BBC Radio overviews, and Euronews. He does seem like a notable author in crypto? Aszx5000 (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from article subject: obviously I'm not going to express an opinion on the discussion, but I'm delighted to have a second AFD. Here's the first - David Gerard (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of good RS on you since the 2008 AfD is considerable. I think not only do you meet WP:NAUTHOR, but the coverage you have in global media (per the article), shows that you are notable in the crypto space (i.e. WP:NBASIC). Aszx5000 (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage of Gerard is already quite substantial, but here are some more sources: Profile in Decrypt; coverage of UK Parliament testimony by Yahoo Finance; coverage of uncovering crypto flaw in The Register; profile in Coingeek; book review; central commenter on BBC article on edit wars, including biographical info. Fences&Windows 10:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to Decrypt and Coingeek, are they considered to be RS? I know that there's generally a presumption against using crypto-specific news sources for establishing notability of cryptocurrency and blockchain projects, but does that same presumption also apply to related persons? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the refs I have added to the article (and those also quoted above), he meets WP:NBASIC as a notable person in the cryptocurrency space; he is getting referred to and asked opinions by many WP:RS/P-type quality sources (e.g. Guardian, FT, WPO, BBC, etc.), appearing on UK select committees on crypto, and his crypto books are getting cited by academic papers on crypto (he is also close to, if not already at, WP:NAUTHOR in crypto, per here). Aszx5000 (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I have a COI; Gerard is a friend. Seems clearly to meet NAUTHOR, and a page about the book not the person would make less sense given the person is often quoted in the press. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - are there any Daily Mail sources? ;-) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cam here from DYK talk. The article was nominated there and I questioned the notability on the talk page. I now think the person passes WP:NAUTHOR. I have no relationship with the subject. Lightburst (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets criteria. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here is a review of the sources. I am reviewing them solely for whether they confer notability, not whether they are usable sources in an article that's notable (obviously most of them are).

1.

Miller, Joe (6 August 2014). "Wiki wars: Do Wikipedia's internal tiffs deter newcomers?". BBC News. Retrieved 8 June 2023. Quoted a couple times briefly.

2:

Edelman, Gilad. "Welcome to the Zombie Cryptocalypse". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Interview with him. This could be something.

3:

Silverman, Jacob; Shure, Natalie; Pareene, Alex (20 April 2021). "Cryptocurrencies Are the Next Frontier for the Surveillance :State". The New Republic. ISSN 0028-6583. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Mentioned briefly.

4:

"Don't be fooled: Crypto is going up because of market manipulation". Mashable. 17 January 2023. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Quoted briefly.

5:

Kelly, Jemima (24 August 2020). "Who's been editing the Ripple CEO's Wikipedia page?". Financial Times. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Paywalled, I have no opinion.

6:

"Wikipedia child image censored". BBC News. 8 December 2008. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Quoted briefly.

7:

"Wikipedia at 20: The encyclopedia in five articles". BBC News. 15 January 2021. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Quoted briefly.

8:

Wark, Kirsty (26 August 2009). "Is the philosophy of Wikipedia now dead?". BBC Newsnight. Retrieved 8 June 2023. "Kirsty Wark :is joined by David Gerard, a Wikipedia Editor, and by Kevin Anderson from the Guardian" This looks like a podcast or something. The page is not loading properly for me, so I can't tell.

9:

Smith, Catherine (18 December 2007). "Wikipedia blocks users in Lehi neighborhood". Deseret News. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Quoted briefly.

10:

"Wikipedia bans posts from Qatar". The Age. 4 January 2007. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Quoted briefly.

11:

Sonnenfeld, Daniel (9 February 2021). "IDF asks Wikipedia to edit 'Hezbollah' entry to reflect terror designation". The :Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 9 June 2023. Quoted at some length, along with some other people, but for more than a brief snippet.

12:

"Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain: The Book". Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain. 22 April 2017. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Well, this is his book.

13:

Halpern, Sue. "Bitcoin Mania Book review with a couple passing mentions.

14:

"Blockchain and bitcoin: In search of a critique". LSE Business Review. 30 October 2017. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Well, this looks like in-depth coverage (it's basically entirely about the book), but it's at "blogs.lse.ac.uk" and I don't know what the status of this source is (is it a blog, or a newsblog, or what?)

15:

"Tech Tent: What a year for Bitcoin". BBC News. 22 December 2017. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Mentioned in passing and quoted from a bit.

16:

Jaffe, Aaron (2019). "Reboot Everything". American Book Review. 40 (6): 15–16. doi:10.1353/abr.2019.0094. ISSN 2153-4578. Mentions the book.

17:

"ENGL 391 :: Politics of the Digital". www.people.vcu.edu. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Mentioned in a curriculum.

18:

"Sam Bankman-Fried was hailed as a crypto wonder child. What happened?". The Guardian. 15 November 2022. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 30 May 2023. A byline by him, but not coverage of him.

19:

"Central bank digital currency – nine key questions answered". LSE Business Review. 15 December 2020. Retrieved 30 May 2023. Quoted briefly. This seems to be the same site as the "blogs.lse.ac.uk" one from earlier.

20:

McCallum, Shiona; Vallance, Chris (16 November 2022). "Over a million are owed money by failed crypto exchange". BBC News. Retrieved 8 June 2023. Quoted briefly.

21:

Brend, Yvette (19 November 2022). "Celebs like Tom Brady, Larry David did ads for crypto giant FTX. Now they're getting sued". CBC News. Retrieved 8 June 2023. Quoted briefly.

22:

Castor, Amy (23 November 2022). "'Betrayed': FTX meltdown signals end to crypto's 'Wild West' days". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 8 January 2023. Quoted briefly.

23:

Steer, George (1 June 2022). "The crypto plan to save our souls". Retrieved 8 June 2023. Paywalled, cannot read.

24:

Zeitchik, Steven (17 December 2022). "Crypto pulled off its big upgrade. Even larger ambitions await". The Washington Post. Retrieved 8 June 2023. Quoted briefly.

25:

Zeitchik, Steven (7 November 2022). "Musk sees a big role for crypto on Twitter. He'll face a tall climb". The Washington Post. Retrieved 8 June 2023. Quoted briefly.

26:

"Researchers, journalists and businesses questioned on blockchain uses". Parliament of the United Kingdom. 23 June 2022. Retrieved 8 June 2023. Mentioned as having said some stuff to Parliament. I do not know much about how Parliament works, so maybe that is a big deal (it sounds like one to me).

27:

"2Blockchain and crypto-assets: advantages and limitations". Parliament of the United Kingdom. 19 September 2018. Retrieved 8 June 2023. Same as before (note that, if you are trying to ctrl+f here, they misspelt it as "Gerrard")

28:

"Academic papers: Attack of the 50-Foot Blockchain". davidgerard.co.uk. 2023. Retrieved 8 June 2023. His own website.

29:

"About the author". Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain. 8 July 2017. Retrieved 30 May 2023. His own website.

30:

Brown, Abram. "Inside The Reddit Forum That Wants To See Bitcoin Die". Forbes. Retrieved 30 May 2023. This is a Forbes contributor article, not reliable.

I am not intensely familiar with NAUTHOR outcomes, so I welcome anyone with more knowledge of this area to say whether these quotes contribute to a notability pass. jp×g 08:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You demonstrated WP:NBASIC, the basis on most of the Keeps have been made, (and #28, which has the academic papers and additional book reviews, the "red X", is most probably WP:NAUTHOR). Aszx5000 (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This person (and in many cases his book) is getting quoted in a long list of WP:RS/P sources (e.g. Guardian, FT, WPO, BBC), and appearing on Select Committees, on crypto (NBASIC). A notable figure in crypto. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes do not make notability -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are not just quoting him, they are contacting him for this opinion and repeating a summary of their discussion in their paper. That is NBASIC. You may not like him (per your comment in the nom), but he is a notable figure in crypto and is being regularly contacted by some of the most highly regarded RS for his views. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is 60 Minutes interviewing him in 2022 and calling him a renowned crypto sceptic David Gerard. That goes to NBASIC. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I may come off as a stereotypical grumpy old person yelling "you young'uns gerroff ma lawn" but a twenty-second blurb saying who the interviewee is in no way shape or forms significant coverage, which is the basis of BASIC (the other part is "independent of the subject"). You might want to argue it counts towards the ANYBIO or AUTHOR parts, but BASIC? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient independent coverage to presume notability. ResonantDis_tortion 09:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now a pretty clear Keep thanks to improvements. I have met DG a few times, years ago. Johnbod (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the book reviews such as the one that says "the first real, 'no holds barred', attack on the whole bitcoin/cryptocurrency/blockchain movement" make me believe that the subject passes WP:NAUTHOR; being the first, or one of the first, or the first in a particular sense is generally associated with notability.—Alalch E. 16:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough and properly sourced. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough and properly sourced. --evrik ^(talk) 02:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable author. Bruxton (talk) 13:51, 12 June 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.