Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Szabo


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Nick Szabo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject seems to be notable only for an unconfirmed theory about his possible association with a pseudonym. If/when this is confirmed, he would become notable as Satoshi Nakamoto, but he is just the latest of many theories as to Nakamoto's identity and is not notable at this time. &mdash; TORTOISE WRATH  05:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - The guy invented 'smart contracts', which is the hotest thing in the crypto world, and he also invented 'bit gold', which is a precursor to Bitcoin. He would be notable if every mention of Satoshi Nakamoto were removed from the page. Sanpitch (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Certainly possible. I'm not a major follower of cryptocurrency; all I know is that the article wasn't created until the theory of his Nakamototude was publicised. &mdash; TORTOISE  WRATH  16:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete? If the claims are true there should be vast cites on GS. There aren't. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Satoshi Nakamoto has an article without having any classic publications. Szabo also doesn't have publications in maintstream pubs, but he is nevertheless influential. Sanpitch (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Also famous for his critique of micropayments, which heavily influenced the micropayments debate, per the references in the article.Mercury&#39;s Stepson (talk)
 * "famous"? sources please. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC).


 * Comment The arguments here seem to be leaning between micropayments/smart contracts are notable, therefore Szabo is notable and he might be Nakamoto, so we should talk about him. I think the best option at the moment might be to merge into Satoshi Nakamoto, Micropayments, and Smart contracts. &mdash; TORTOISE  WRATH  18:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * His name appears in 12 different Wikipedia articles by my count (using advanced search). We would be leaving a bunch of orphan links in Wikipedia if we deleted or merged. Mercury&#39;s Stepson (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Will be useful to many readers, and many readers will expect Wikipedia to have an article on him. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Gwern (contribs) 01:11 9 March 2014 (GMT)
 * Keep. His works on smart contracts are very important and we are only starting to see the first practical efforts to implement some of his ideas. --Joancharmant (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. He made important contributions to cryptocurrency. Binarybits (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. For work on smart contracts and micropayments. Autarch (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep -- given the combination of his work on cryptography and media coverage due to the association with Satoshi, he should be presumed to be notable. --Aqwis (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * These claims are all very well but where are the sources? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC).


 * Keep. He is a precursor. Limit-theorem (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2014 (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.