Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaux Avedisian


 * 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. Only one good source, WSJ, is not enough to meet WP:GNG. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Margaux Avedisian

 * – ( View AfD View log )

notability not established, sources are not reputable, only reputable source is the single WSJ article, which is not enough to establish notability. The three sources mentioned by User:Kvng in their deprod are also not sufficient for establishing notability. The forbes source is written by a contributor, not a staff writer; it is more like a blog that she's been paid to write, there is no editorial oversight. The article isn't even about Avedisian, it just quotes her. Another link provided by Kvng is TheNextWeb. Note that TheNextWeb is a perennial source. This source is not in-depth either, stating things like "Avedisian has played a part making Bitcoin more accessible and mainstream." without detailing how, suggesting that simply because she was a comedian, she has done that. The section is all based on quotes by Avedisian, and TheNextWeb hasn't done any original research on Avedisian. The last source provided by Kvng, siliconangle is from a site dedicated to covering emerging tech. Because it only covers "emerging" phenomenons, coverage there cannot be seen as establishing notability; the purpose of the site is to be too early. The article contains dubious quotes like "The founders of two biggest ICOs — Bancor and Tezos — are females." without explaining what constitutes an ICO, and where this information comes from. The bar for crypto sources is higher, and all these sources are sub-par, I don't think they establish notability. Sites like these are covering a new person in the ecosystem every week. Wikipedia cannot contain articles about every single one of them. Titles like "queen of Bitcoin" makes her sound important, but this is just clickbait. In technology, notability should not be automatically established because someone is female. Technology media has a tendency to prop up women in a male-dominated field as "the only one" (which is something "queen" implies). It is a gimmick of technology media, and as can be seen, not even the WSJ is sober enough to abstain from it. Ysangkok (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~Kvng (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree notability is marginal but the case is strong enough that I don't think using WP:PROD to delete this was appropriate. ~Kvng (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * First WSJ source: this is good, it's a biographical profile in a high quality RS.
 * Other sources: Esquire is a single passing mention. IHB is a dead link. Lifeboat Foundation is a self-sourced fringe organisation. Academy of Art University School of Fashion is an internal passing mention in a list of names. DLD Conference is a dead link to a primary source video from a conference with no evidence of notability. Fox Video links are both dead links. Assemble is a dead link. Radio Free Brooklyn is a podcast link. Second WSJ link doesn't mention the subject at all. PE Hub links are dead links. Wired link doesn't mention the subject.
 * So we have an article that has one good source - and that every single other source on is bad or useless for a BLP. This is classic WP:REFBOMBing - the illusion of backing for an article.
 * Is a single biographical profile enough to swing an article? If so, most of the article would have to be deleted and it would need to be cut down to that sole source - this is a BLP. Leaning delete without more - David Gerard (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Barely found anything about her. Search results return mostly articles where she's mentioned as the "Queen of Bitcoin". Perhaps a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete obvious self-serving promotionalism about a person "who has called herself the Queen of Bitcoin,"  DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC) �
 * Keep Google and google news bring up many more sources, mostly industry and conference appearance. Someone with so many conference appearance is obviously a subject expert. As she has much peer reviewed sources, she qualifies. There is also Venture Capital Journal source, but you can only see it via Google Cache. Expertwikiguy (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC) Update:  5 more industry sources added, mostly mentioning her conference appearances. This one is more in-depth article.Expertwikiguy (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are you linking Venture Capital Journal? The cached article contains no information about Avedisian at all, it just drops her name and says she will be speaking. How is this relevant for the article? Why would such a name drop in a dead "journal" establish notability? The "article" claims that she is a managing partner at "BlockStream Ventures", but try googling that and you'll find nothing. Check out her LinkedIn and it is nowhere to be mentioned. The SiliconAngle article you're linking is the same one I linked in the nomination, I already explained how it is unreliable. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * there is also a video of her in Venture Capital Journal, but you have to sign up to see. In addition, she has 2 sources from Wall Street Journal. You cannot possibly say WSJ is not a credible source! I think there is enough coverage with 20 sources that even if a few are not reliable we are still good to meet notability. The notability guidelines say that a person needs to have significant coverage and this person does. In addition there are many peer reviewed websites which also establish notability in her own field as an expert. For some reason there are a lot of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency haters on Wikipedia as editors and admins. Yes there is a lot of scam in this field, but there are also a lot real legit companies and individuals. Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notability is marginal but adequately established by two sources: WSJ and Silicon Angle. Article can be improved to remove any WP:PROMO isses; Deletion is not required to fix this. ~Kvng (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * did you read my nomination? I tried to explain why I don't consider SiliconAngle citable. It admits to cover "emerging" stuff. How is emerging different than WP:TOOSOON? --Ysangkok (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes and covering emergig stuff is not a valid disqualifier. If it were, no newspapers would be citable. WP:TOOSOON is not a valid reason to delete once there is coverage by reliable secondary sources. WSJ and SiliconAngle are secondary sources. ~Kvng (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not all media is focused on covering emerging tech by propping it up like SiliconAngle is. Here are a few of their headlines, I have highlighted their bias. They are most likely getting paid for putting up these pieces:
 * "Digging up dark data: What puts IBM at the forefront of insight economy | #IBMinsight" Obviously paid for by IBM. Even put the hashtag in the headline. Did you see other reputable media do that?
 * "A Name Change for Tivoli Proves New Focus on Smarter Infrastructure | #IBMEdge" Ditto.
 * Fancy Follows Fab’s Lead, Attracts More Celeb Support for New Age Retail. Note how it is not critical at all and even claims "The secret behind The Fancy’s success is its strong emphasis on user experience." Does it sound like independent reliable research? No.
 * Dassault’s modest proposal: Change the way we make everything. Another article without a single critical word.
 * --Ysangkok (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , this is looking like a Reliable sources/Noticeboard discussion. SiliconAngle is not on WP:RSP. ~Kvng (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A relevant deletion discussion is, however, a perfectly good place to discuss it. Not all sources have been through RSN, and not all bad sources are listed on RSP - David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. I don't have the wherewithal right now to independently research whether SiliconAngle is reliable. The demonstrated notability of this subject is marginal with or without it. ~Kvng (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete the SiliconAngle source is not a generally reliable source. WSJ by itself is not enough to keep per GNG (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">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.