Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Maxwell


 * 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 speedy delete per G7 and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I'll note that this should not be eligible for REFUND since a consensus was developing in favour of speedy deletion regardless of the author requesting it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Gregory Maxwell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article does not establish the subject's notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. It's a list of things that he has said and done unsupported by reliable sources. ... disco spinster   talk  18:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC) ... disco spinster  talk  18:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Utterly non-notable and even the non-reddit sources (which I've removed) are circular, referencing Reddit. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  19:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I changed my mind and now support deletion. --Ysangkok (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Keep. Three instances which fulfill Notability (academics) point 1:
 * 1) In the field of coding theory: The CELT paper has been widely cited: 61 times.
 * 2) In the field of cryptocurrency research: He is mentioned in e.g. the Acknowledgements peer-reviewed search like.
 * 3) I would argue that he is notabile simply because he is the primary author of CoinJoin. The notability of CoinJoin has been uncontested since October 2014.
 * --Ysangkok (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Calling 61 citations "highly cited" is a bit of a stretch... –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete 90% of what anyone going to find to source on something like this would be forum posts and outright paid hit pieces; as a result it is almost certain to never be a reasonable, informed, or even article-- and instead just act as an unintentional whitewashing facility for low quality material. I also think I meet every test on the low-profile side. FWIW, the creator of the article seems to be calling for brigading this AfD on the bitcoin subreddit. --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Since this is not a vote, but a debate, how can more participation be a problem? So many AfD's are closed with hardly any discussion, I don't think attracting Redditors is a problem. --Ysangkok (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete - I've known Greg through Wikipedia for a long time now, and whilst I occasionally stumble across his name in tech news, he's not remotely notable and seriously doesn't meet the inclusion criteria at this time. I'd argue that a paper being cited 61 times is not remotely "widely cited" whilst I've an acknowledgement or two in various papers and I'm sure as hell not notable. We also must remember that notability can't be inherited just because he created something notable doesn't make him notable. Sorry Ysangkok, time to let this one go. Nick (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I already did! --Ysangkok (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Very Speedy Delete As per the previous input. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2017 (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.