Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balaji Srinivasan


 * 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. Doing us all a favor. Missvain (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Balaji Srinivasan

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not really notable compared to other CTOs given as examples here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_technology_officer#Notable_CTOs article seems to be a puff piece

Creating deletion discussion for Balaji Srinivasan

Quicklibrary (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Srinivasan is notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article in my view. The problem is with the article as it is currently written. It reads like a laundry list of his accomplishments. No attempt has been made to explain his thoughts and ideas or place these thoughts and ideas in any kind of context. Srinivasan is an associate of Peter Thiel and an advocate of Dark Enlightenment ideas. Several of these folks are the subject of Wikipedia articles — Curtis Yarvin, Nick Land, the aforementioned Thiel. Srinivasan is also an important figure in crypto-currency circles. Chisme (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

* Speedy Delete He isn't published anywhere as an author, and it looks like his writing is mostly just tweeting stuff about crypto. Wikipedia's articles on notable CTOs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_technology_officer#Notable_CTOs are a list of their professional achievements. Without published thought leadership on topics besides crypto (where he seems to just tweet) us asserting what his 'thoughts and ideas' are would require original research into it. Wikipedia doesn't seem to be the place for that. Quicklibrary (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You are the nominator of the article for deletion. You can't !vote. You basically !voted when you nominated it. Missvain (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah gotcha, didn't know that, thanks Missvain. , Quicklibrary (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC) QL

TheFutureIsHere2100 (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This individual seems to be only "Twitter-famous." Many of the citations are to the tech-press and not serious pieces, but possibly just a way for this individual to obtain publicity for their companies. The entire "crypto" space is filled with these individuals. There are references which point to this individual being marginal and side-player to notable events, but nothing where they themselves are at the center, outside of the hot-house of the tech-sector, which is notable for flash-in-the-pan publicity. Perhaps notability would be established if they produced something original rather than contribute to the stream of crypto-chatter.


 * Keep. There is enough WP:NOTABILITY from reliable primary and secondary sources. His sparing with the media makes it in the news a lot (  There's significant coverage for Balaji's entrepreneurship and personal notability. --Plasticdying (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Subject is notable but the article is a mess and fails BLP many times over. Recommend blowing it up and starting over Ew3234 (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC) * Keep Changing my vote to keep to build more consensus towards keep for this poor-faith Afd. Ew3234 (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. Inclusion in WP:BLP must meet a high bar of notability, and if dispute exists, should not be included in BLP. WP is not a publisher of original research on a subject’s “thoughts and ideas” if they are unexplained by reliable sources. Other WP users have already proposed deletion of concepts referenced in this page (“paper belt”, "teleport") due to the dearth of reliable sources (WP:RS) on these topics. Kristyuhorton (talk) 08:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Even if the tech press is trying to boost this guy that is in itself interesting. Nuking and starting over can be done without a deletion. Sam Vimes 22:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Significant coverage by RS over multiple topics. Sure, let's slash the article down, but plenty to work with here. Jlevi (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. This person is not important enough to be in Coinbase page and their main claim to fame is a firm which does not have a page. This is someone trying to ride crypto to fame and fortune. They gin up attention. Not notable. Delete and bring back when they do something. Bitbro1972 (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - he's obviously very notable. He's one of the most powerful influencers in tech (just look at his Twitter and press coverage of what he says) and founded 1729, a very notable new decentralized education startup that isn't even mentioned on the article, but really should be!! There are routes to improve this article and make it less focused on just Coinbase. Danski14(talk) 20:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete - Never even heard of the guy until the recent article on media vs tech VC 173.31.203.116 (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

* Speedy Delete - I don't see much here besides the technical fact of being a CTO: a motion to keep mentions political views, but I cannot find such perspectives of the Subject published anywhere reputable. Another mentions him sparring with news media, but this seems to be only an active twitter presence and no feature besides his own tweeting. As a CTO, there's no particular notability. As a very active twitter user, Wikipedia would be profiling an unlimited number of people as 'notable' if that were the bar. As for 1729 - what is it? why is it also notable? is it part of his work as a CTO? The answers to these questions are unclear to me, and answering them would mean writing up original research into the biography of a living person. Quicklibrary (talk) 04:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You are the nominator of the article for deletion. You can't !vote. You basically !voted when you nominated it. Missvain (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

* Speedy Delete

I'll try to summarize my prior comments.

- Doesn't seem to compare to the figures listed here as notable CTOs: here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_technology_officer#Notable_CTOs

- is ascribed views by other Wikipedians but doesn't seem to have authored anything about them featured in any reputable publication (would require original research to establish his views, or their cultural salience)

- main written output seems to be an active twitter that is highly focused on the crypto space, which all seems to have come *after* his main work as a CTO for Coinbase

- Is not even featured by Coinbase as notable

- current projects like 1729 appear to have little traction or impact

- was once a CTO but thousands of others are also presently CTOs. Will every former CTO be notable?

- looks to have gotten into fights with people on twitter: this doesn't seem important

- not much left to say on this page besides the founding and sale of his company. Looks to be a successful one, but I don't think this alone establishes particular notability.

Quicklibrary (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You are the nominator of the article for deletion. You can't really !vote. Missvain (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

* Speedy Delete

- Again, he is Twitter famous. But that's not a real metric, as that is easy to manipulate in a non-organic manner. Twitter is not irrelevant, but it's importance is conditional on other concrete contributions.

- As noted by others he isn't even listed as CTO on Coinbase page. CTO at a firm in a new industry isn't notable. If being Silicon Valley rich is notable, there should be way more people on Wikipedia.

- A lot of reference to a 2013 article. Is that it outside of Twitter? Not everyone who wrote an article in the WSJ in 2013 is notable. If that piece did not spawn an ecosystem of countervailing ideas then what's the importance?

- The whole economy of firms like Coinbase seems pretty fragile right now. This individual isn't in a well-established industry, but an influencer who is good at manipulating Twitter. The crypto-space may exhibit the features of being a bubble, and this person's reputation may be the same.

TheFutureIsHere2100 (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You can only !vote once. If you have new comments please add them to your original !vote. Missvain (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Admin comment - A sockpuppet investigation - Sockpuppet investigations/Quicklibrary - has been opened regarding select participants in this AfD. Missvain (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: WOULD LOVE INPUT FROM EXPERIENCED EDITORS
 * Keep, I guess. Seems rather notable, even being considered for public office for some reason, and it looks like there's a lot of sources there (granted, some look to be primary or dreaded press releases). But the article should be edited or something to remove the promotional tone; right now it just reads like a list of "hey, he did this company". This sockpuppet stuff really sours this AfD, but I was going to vote for Keep anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdoTang (talk • contribs)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 *  Keep . . There is enough WP:NOTABILITY from reliable primary and secondary sources. His sparing with the media makes it in the news a lot ([1] There's significant coverage for Balaji's entrepreneurship and personal notability.Plasticdying (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Plasticdying, you can only !vote once. So please chose one or the other and combine your thoughts accordingly, thanks. Missvain (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - there's some weird shenanigans going on here. Let's please close this as a Keep. I'm going to change my previous !vote to keep. Ew3234 (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.