Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Larimer


 * 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. Clearly an edge notability case, but right now the community leans toward that he doesn't meet WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Daniel Larimer

 * – ( View AfD View log )

notability not established, using primary self-published sources like github, other sources are not primarily about Larimer Ysangkok (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep "Floyd Co. entrepreneur cashes in on virtual currency craze", "Dan Larimer's Path From Working On Weapons To Minting Crypto Riches", and "Empty walls and big ambitions: Inside block.one, the $1.5 billion cryptocurrency startup taking shape in Blacksburg" which is not just about the company ("Larimer" appears about 45 times). Ҥ (talk) 06:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That Forbes blog piece (admittedly written by staff) is 140 words (not a lot, it would fit in a tweet). It has no journalistic content, probably relying 100% on a short email exchange or phone call. The two Roanoke articles are local news, obviously biased to prop up a local company. If local media can be relied on to establish notability, we'd have 20 articles for every town with its own newspaper. I am not saying that they are not reliable, but I don't think it can establish notability. --Ysangkok (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I am discarding the last "delete" comment as a argument to avoid, needs further discussion
 * Delete non notable, PR  -- Devoke water   (talk)  20:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  22:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Dan Larimer was behind a $4B token offering, the largest one of record. "Inside the Chaotic Launch of a $4 Billion Crypto Project", "Fortune's The Ledger 40 Under 40: Dan Larimer", " --RandomWalker (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , there is no guideline that grants notability if a person is associated with any particular threshold amount of money. --Ysangkok (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete No sources to backup, just mentions and pr stuff. Sliekid (talk) 06:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 11:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Lots of WP:PUFF for a BLP article. It seems to be mostly company and is WP:PROMO at best. Of the 13 references, 15 are invalid, company references that are announcement, PR of some kind. The  is a dependent source, an interview. The ref is a dud. Doing a search a found coverage related to his position. No real secondary sources were discovered. Looking at the sources provided above:
 * Fortune's The Ledger 40 Under 40: Dan Larimer This is an X of Y article. A picture of a smiling man. Dependent. Very low-quality source. These X of Y article had their day as relevant sources, as they effectively profiles.
 * Inside the Chaotic Launch of a $4 Billion Crypto Project This is an annoucment. It is dependent sources, from a press-release. It is Non-RS.
 * Another dependent sources, from a deprecated source. A smiling face, him talking.
 * Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. No in-depth coverage. All PR in one way or another.    scope_creep Talk  09:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in Fortune that required Dan Larimer's input, expect maybe to confirm his age. Not even his "smiling" picture.
 * "Inside the Chaotic Launch of a $4 Billion Crypto Project" is from the Wall Street Journal and there's nothing that suggests that it's based off an announcement or press-release. From the article: "Three-hour conference call at EOS reveals tensions among developers", "But infighting among the software’s fragmented developers shows it still has a way to go before the platform lives up to the hype", and "Block.one couldn’t be reached for comment."
 * The source that you claimed was "deprecated" is by a Forbes staff writer not "contributor" if that was what you were thinking. A source doesn't lose independence because they contacted the subject and included a quote. Ҥ (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * how can that Forbes source be reputable? How is it in-depth? I asked you above. --Ysangkok (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no major issue with it. It is more than a mention and I think it helps. See WP:BASIC "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" Ҥ (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm at a little bit of a loss how to close this without super!voting, as the discussion requires looking at the articles and the sources. I would agree notability hinges on the local pieces, the Forbes piece, and the WSJ piece.  The local pieces are just that, per scope creep.  The Forbes piece is staff written, but it is very short, providing little in-depth coverage.  The question is about the Wall Street Journal.  It is also by a staff writer, and I'm having difficulty classifying it as strictly a PR piece.  However, I can't access the whole article, but from what I can see it doesn't seem to contain much information about Larimer, rather about the project.  For those who have access, how much information is there about the topic at hand, that could be used to create encyclopedic content about Larimer?   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 15:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have access to the whole article, and you could get to it through ProQuest via the Wikipedia Libraries bundle. All the coverage I see of Larimer in the article is Investors pumped some $4 billion into EOS in a sale of digital tokens that ended this month. In a promotional video for its initial coin offering, Dan Larimer, Block.one’s chief technology officer, called EOS a “blockchain technology that can support real-world use cases serving millions of users." Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak delete, most source analysis per 78.26, as I mention above the WSJ article isn't SIGCOV of Larimer himself, and has minimal indication of being of use about writing an encyclopedic article on Larimer. It's mostly about EOS.IO, I'd say. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - he's almost notable, but currently the WP:V information we have about him is of the "X did Y" routine variety. The Roanoke Times piece is a RS, and although it has some useful bits of information that could be used it is a local-interest story, more about bitcoin phenomonem than Larimer.  The Forbes piece is the best we have, and  the sum total of what we have isn't really enough to create an encyclopedic NPOV article, just a resume.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 18:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.