Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satoshi Nakamoto


 * 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   merge to Bitcoin. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Satoshi Nakamoto

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No notability demonstrated as per WP:N. No major press coverage, most links are to bitcoin forums etc. Hell they don't even know if he's a real person or not. This article should be merged with Bitcoin. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This should be deleted. Speculation about a software developer which appears to be non-notable his creation of bitcoin. It's full of random speculation, and the lack of substance makes the existing content unsuitable for merging. At best this could hope to be is a terrible coat-rack article, unless he does something else interesting and unless more cite-able material becomes available.--Gmaxwell (talk) 08:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect; Nakamoto doesn't have any notability apart from Bitcoin, so merge any relevant info into that article. The fact that Nakamoto might be a pseudonym is irrelevant to his notability. There's a fair bit of major press coverage mentioning Nakamoto too, but only incidentally to Bitcoin, and so there's no need for a separate article on its creator. Miracle Pen (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Bitcoin. Like other articles about people known for one thing only, Nakamoto (or whatever his name really is) has no notability independent of his single work. The article can be resurrected if he does something else. This has been done before (here) so there's a precedent. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * People have accused Satoshi Nakamoto of being a pseudonym but now you accuse him of being software? You've gone too far! --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect or Merge to Bitcoin is probably the better option, given the lack of proper sources --SF007 (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect as only thing of note this character is linked to it is far more informative to have information in the Bitcoin article itself. If there is significant evidence of notability independent of Bitcoin then go ahead and have the separate page but wikipedia users are better served by not doubling up information unnecessarily. 194.66.0.122 (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The guy invented bitcoin, and as of the time of this comment he's mentioned in 18 news stories, his paper has been cited 4 times, and google claims 56,000 references to him on the interwebs. You can't in honesty claim he's not notable, particularly if the hype around bitcoin continues. For better or worse, his invention might change economics as we know it. 121.45.247.39 (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Bitcoin. I came here wondering what the deal with the creator of Bitcoin was because there was no information about him/her in the article. It's reasonable for people to be curious about the creator.  The creator's anonymity is worth mentioning, as, currently, there's no reason for an average person reading the Bitcoin page to think Satoshi Nakamoto isn't just some Japanese guy.  That's misleading (not intentionally so, but still). I think a brief "Creator" or "Origin" blurb would be good--something to acknowledge the mystery. --76.115.3.200 (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The inventor of a global electronic currency is blatantly notable. The article may need more sources, but deleting it for that reason would be silly. — O'Dea  (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Mentioned in the Guardian earlier this week, in the New York Observer today, in London's City A.M. last week, and on Raznick's Forbes blog also last week. Oh, and in the Wall Street Journal last week too. --Tris2000 (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect. In either case, make it clear to the reader from the start that it probably is a non-existing character, a pseudonym. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldCar (talk • contribs) 12:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --Kusunose 14:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to Bitcoin, redirect The problem here isn't notability. The problem here is anonymity and lack of information. The name is probably a pseudonym. There isn't enough information available about this person (or persons) for an article.  --John Nagle (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. No significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG has presented here. I do not buy the claims that he qualifies per WP:CREATIVE in the absence of WP:SECONDARY coverage. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. While enigmatic, Satoshi Nakamoto is certainly notable. The very fact that he is so hidden and mysterious by nature adds to his notoriety. Besides the aforementioned Guardian, New York Observer, and Forbes, he has been name dropped in Business Week, The Atlantic, and The Wall Street Journal. This, at the very least, demonstrates that this article is deserving of a keep. -- Sharkface T/C 09:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Coverage there is minimal / trivial. Given the secretive and pseudonymous nature of this guy, it's unlike it will ever be more. All those articles are mainly about bitcoin, not him. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bitcoin — the aforementioned individual is not notable and it appears that very little is known about them. I don't think this will work.  Kinaro (say hello) (what's been done) 07:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The fact that it's a pseudonim clearly indicates that the identity is unknown or intentionally hidden. Jefferson's pseudonim was not known for over a century ; arguments continue three centuries later whether "Shakespear" was one . "Satoshi" case is particularly interesting in the context of libertarian fears of government persecution and Bitcoin connection to controversial The_Silk_Road_(anonymous_marketplace). There are already dozens of mentions in mainstream media and 349,000 Google matches. It's now a cultural phenomena, potentially interesting to a wide audience. Get over it, maybe Satoshi is not Lady Gaga, but notorious for sure. --WalterKin (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Merging and redirecting seem to be the most sensible thing to do. – Kaihsu (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. I'm a fan of Bitcoin, but per WP:N (WP:BLP1E) Satoshi does not merit an article when notable only for creation of Bitcoin. Casascius♠ (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect Per above. Cloudpersona (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Satoshi maybe a pseudonym but we have to remember he needs to protect his privacy, but its unfair that because he wants privacy that he should be denied acknowledgement for his invention.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.142.191.161 (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Satoshi is well known for TWO significant things. 1) He is an Inventor who has successfully created the first decentralized digital currency the world has ever known. 2) He is an Academic Author of a book selling at amazon.com that brilliantly details the key concepts of peer-to-peer distributed currencies. Disallowing him a page is illogical. His name and contributions to the world only grow larger with time. --Misbach (talk), 23 June 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 07:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC).
 * A book with 4 citations in Google Scholar, so of negligible academic impact right now. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I just looked this guy up on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.218.156.103 (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep There is no reason to censor this. It is the name used by the inventor of Bitcoin, there's more than enough evidence and coverage of that. --Tiago Rinck Caveden (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep There is no reason to delete on Wikipedia. Satoshi already has a popular presence on the internet history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.154.113 (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep If BitCoin ends up being the digital currency of the future, this man will become incredibly significant. You wouldn't Merge Alexander Hamilton and the US Dollar. Heck the US Dollar alone has twelve different articles associated with it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.154.113 (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.244.74.177 (talk)
 * Strong Keep Why should the entry be deleted? He has significance although his real name is not yet known. Famous examples in literature are B._Traven and Mark Twain. Martin.Emmerich (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep of course Many readers will search for the creator of Bitcoin; additional content will find its way to the page if we can just hold off on the censorship. However lest Wikipedia run out of pages, we should indeed delete the article at "Mark Twain" because that is just a pseudonym for a now nonexistent person dealing with archaic "books" which are much less important than the world's most modern currency worth hundreds of millions of euros/dollars and billions of yen. We could also now delete "David Chaum" and "DigiCash" because his own digital currency didn't make it this far. (But please don't try!) Parsiferon (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Why should the entry be deleted? He is the creator of BitCoin, a notable man. JulioSantosMonteiro (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2011 (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.