- 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. After additional sources were added, keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 14:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Craig Steven Wright ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I removed a speedy deletion tag from this bio because a clear claim of notability had been made and backed up by a reliable source. However, the Wired article is the only source, and it makes sweeping claims amid a great deal of surmise and conjecture, perhaps too much to meet
WP:BLP requirements for such a dramatic assertion. I've cut the article back to the bare bones of Wired's assertion.
Acroterion
(talk)
04:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: I would just wait this out and see if it turns into anything bigger. A number of reputable sources have picked up on it. This may just be a sentence on Satoshi Nakamoto, or it could require its own article. - Newyorkadam ( talk) 04:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam
- The independent Gizmodo ref helps considerably: my main concern rested on the single source. As you say, let's see how this plays out. I would expect more news shortly if both of those publications were pursuing the story independently. Acroterion (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: There's now a third, independent source from The Guardian, which I added to the article. It discusses the Bitcoin claims as well as a bunch of new info, most notably that Wright's home was raided today by Australian federal police. 2601:643:8500:8C5C:28BF:FB8A:B048:C0E2 ( talk) 05:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'll add that, even if the Satoshi thing is a hoax, various sources have commented that the most likely hoaxer would be Wright himself. A hoax of that magnitude (if proven) would be notable in its own right. 2601:643:8500:8C5C:B02F:2B62:7F32:81AF ( talk) 09:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: Person currently part of an unfolding news story. Sukhoi 24 ( talk) 10:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep for now. Can always be deleted later if it turns out to be untrue. Thue ( talk) 10:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect to Satoshi_Nakamoto#Craig_Steven_Wright Tom Ruen ( talk) 11:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep for now - it's a developing story, so give it a day or two to accumulate sources. Might blow over and stay WP:1E, but there seems to be some information beyond Bitcoin already. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 13:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Keep for the autor of BitCoin. Vitor Mazuco Talk! 13:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep for now -- Lebd ( talk) 13:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Weak keep or redirect to Satoshi_Nakamoto#Craig_Steven_Wright- I like the redirect idea. WP:NOTNEWS applies here. However, the evidence is very strong that Wright either created bitcoin or was intimately involved in its creation, so I think there is a high probability that we will want to have an article on Wright in the near future. From that point a view, keeping the article for now may be a better idea, to avoid the hassle of having to overturn the AfD. Also, we might be able to use some of the sources from the WIRED story. Danski14 (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Could you explain exactly how WP:NOTNEWS applies here? What is the relevant text in WP:NOTNEWS? -- Nbauman ( talk) 16:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support redirect. Just another suspect. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/) [1] 16:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep or merge. Business Insider has more coverage about his life, they also interviewed him in 2014. He is CEO of a company, Demorgan, and an academic. He has also received coverage as a security expert. Fences& Windows 21:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete 1/ Think if it was your name in the title of the article, and all that is written is probably false, 2/ This is not a encyclopedia article but a newpaper article, 3/ Compare this with any another Wikipedia's article related on a personality and you will see this is not a usual Wikipedia's article, , 4/ this is really not the first time somebody think have found Satoshi Nakamoto (as a person or a group) and it has always been denied, 5/ More globally I think only author that that have real and verified information should write about a personnality, 6/ here it is just a copy of thinks that have been published elsewhere by some journalists seeking to increase the audience of their newspaper or website and modify their information hour by hour, 7/ Wikipedia is neither a newspapers nor an investigation website, 8/ wikipedia should immediately delete any article that is concretely defamation, 8/ waiting the article is deleted, I suggest to constrain any any contributor to publish an artcile on itself with the same kind of information
- All of Wikipedia is a "copy of thinks [sic] that have been published elsewhere by some journalists". Wikipedia is a collection of information derived from reliable, secondary, sources, and mainstream newspapers and magazines are formally considered among the "most reliable" sources. The article just repeats what is said in those sources; ie., that the allegations are widely considered serious but not yet proven. For point #4, unlike all previous "Satoshis", Wright hasn't denied the allegations. He deleted his blog and Twitter soon after the allegations were published, but he hasn't denied them, either in public or (at least on-the-record) to any of the journalists that contacted him. 2601:643:8500:8C5C:B02F:2B62:7F32:81AF ( talk) 09:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame ( talk) 00:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep for now. Looks to be a developing story that is gaining notability per the sources I found. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 09:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. I've already "voted", but going over the three-point test from WP:PSEUDO:
- "Do any reliable sources cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage?" Clearly yes. See eg. the coverage of Wright as an individual here or here, which include extensive details of Wright's life, beyond just "he might be Satoshi". This article, about Wright and his "Bitcoin bank", predates the Satoshi claims by over a year.
- "Was the person the main focus of relevant coverage?" Again, clearly yes. Wright is the main focus of the above three articles (and more besides), with other people like Dave Kleiman and Wright's wife Ramona Watts as background figures.
- "Is the person notable for any other events in their life?" This is slightly less clear, but I'd also say yes. Wright's conflicts with the Australian Tax Office over quite large amounts of money, his building the most powerful privately owned supercomputer (on Top500 here), his founding of a large "Bitcoin bank", etc. are all important in their own right. 2601:643:8500:8C5C:F46E:C25A:C76C:22DE ( talk) 09:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Can be deleted if this all turns out to be wrong, but truth be told I think he's an interesting enough individual in his own right to merit a page regardless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G0T0 ( talk • contribs) 01:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete This is now a know hoax, verified by http://motherboard.vice.com/read/satoshis-pgp-keys-are-probably-backdated-and-point-to-a-hoax — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.251.53.173 ( talk) 14:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep for now. Regardless of whether he is truly Nakomoto, this is significant coverage, and his notability probably surpasses this event in any case. Jacona ( talk) 15:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Merge and Move to Incubation - Page is currently better suited in subsection of Satoshi_Nakamoto#Craig_Steven_Wright page, and since the page discusses a current event that is rapidly evolving, the decision to keep or delete should be made later — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.16.168 ( talk) 17:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Craig Steven Wright is already a notable figure for various reasons, such as having made it to the 15th place in the list of the largest supercomputers of the world with a machine that (by all evidence so far) does not exist. Being mistakenly identified as Satoshi Nakamoto is only a small detail of a bigger story. Also, there is now a New York Times article covering the incident. -- 143.106.24.25 ( talk) 20:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The breadth and scope of the reliable and verifiable coverage distinctly about the subject exceeds the minimum standards of notability. Alansohn ( talk) 03:11, 14 December 2015 (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.
- 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. After additional sources were added, keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 14:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Craig Steven Wright ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I removed a speedy deletion tag from this bio because a clear claim of notability had been made and backed up by a reliable source. However, the Wired article is the only source, and it makes sweeping claims amid a great deal of surmise and conjecture, perhaps too much to meet
WP:BLP requirements for such a dramatic assertion. I've cut the article back to the bare bones of Wired's assertion.
Acroterion
(talk)
04:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: I would just wait this out and see if it turns into anything bigger. A number of reputable sources have picked up on it. This may just be a sentence on Satoshi Nakamoto, or it could require its own article. - Newyorkadam ( talk) 04:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam
- The independent Gizmodo ref helps considerably: my main concern rested on the single source. As you say, let's see how this plays out. I would expect more news shortly if both of those publications were pursuing the story independently. Acroterion (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: There's now a third, independent source from The Guardian, which I added to the article. It discusses the Bitcoin claims as well as a bunch of new info, most notably that Wright's home was raided today by Australian federal police. 2601:643:8500:8C5C:28BF:FB8A:B048:C0E2 ( talk) 05:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'll add that, even if the Satoshi thing is a hoax, various sources have commented that the most likely hoaxer would be Wright himself. A hoax of that magnitude (if proven) would be notable in its own right. 2601:643:8500:8C5C:B02F:2B62:7F32:81AF ( talk) 09:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: Person currently part of an unfolding news story. Sukhoi 24 ( talk) 10:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep for now. Can always be deleted later if it turns out to be untrue. Thue ( talk) 10:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect to Satoshi_Nakamoto#Craig_Steven_Wright Tom Ruen ( talk) 11:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep for now - it's a developing story, so give it a day or two to accumulate sources. Might blow over and stay WP:1E, but there seems to be some information beyond Bitcoin already. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 13:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Keep for the autor of BitCoin. Vitor Mazuco Talk! 13:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep for now -- Lebd ( talk) 13:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Weak keep or redirect to Satoshi_Nakamoto#Craig_Steven_Wright- I like the redirect idea. WP:NOTNEWS applies here. However, the evidence is very strong that Wright either created bitcoin or was intimately involved in its creation, so I think there is a high probability that we will want to have an article on Wright in the near future. From that point a view, keeping the article for now may be a better idea, to avoid the hassle of having to overturn the AfD. Also, we might be able to use some of the sources from the WIRED story. Danski14 (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Could you explain exactly how WP:NOTNEWS applies here? What is the relevant text in WP:NOTNEWS? -- Nbauman ( talk) 16:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support redirect. Just another suspect. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/) [1] 16:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep or merge. Business Insider has more coverage about his life, they also interviewed him in 2014. He is CEO of a company, Demorgan, and an academic. He has also received coverage as a security expert. Fences& Windows 21:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete 1/ Think if it was your name in the title of the article, and all that is written is probably false, 2/ This is not a encyclopedia article but a newpaper article, 3/ Compare this with any another Wikipedia's article related on a personality and you will see this is not a usual Wikipedia's article, , 4/ this is really not the first time somebody think have found Satoshi Nakamoto (as a person or a group) and it has always been denied, 5/ More globally I think only author that that have real and verified information should write about a personnality, 6/ here it is just a copy of thinks that have been published elsewhere by some journalists seeking to increase the audience of their newspaper or website and modify their information hour by hour, 7/ Wikipedia is neither a newspapers nor an investigation website, 8/ wikipedia should immediately delete any article that is concretely defamation, 8/ waiting the article is deleted, I suggest to constrain any any contributor to publish an artcile on itself with the same kind of information
- All of Wikipedia is a "copy of thinks [sic] that have been published elsewhere by some journalists". Wikipedia is a collection of information derived from reliable, secondary, sources, and mainstream newspapers and magazines are formally considered among the "most reliable" sources. The article just repeats what is said in those sources; ie., that the allegations are widely considered serious but not yet proven. For point #4, unlike all previous "Satoshis", Wright hasn't denied the allegations. He deleted his blog and Twitter soon after the allegations were published, but he hasn't denied them, either in public or (at least on-the-record) to any of the journalists that contacted him. 2601:643:8500:8C5C:B02F:2B62:7F32:81AF ( talk) 09:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame ( talk) 00:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep for now. Looks to be a developing story that is gaining notability per the sources I found. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 09:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. I've already "voted", but going over the three-point test from WP:PSEUDO:
- "Do any reliable sources cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage?" Clearly yes. See eg. the coverage of Wright as an individual here or here, which include extensive details of Wright's life, beyond just "he might be Satoshi". This article, about Wright and his "Bitcoin bank", predates the Satoshi claims by over a year.
- "Was the person the main focus of relevant coverage?" Again, clearly yes. Wright is the main focus of the above three articles (and more besides), with other people like Dave Kleiman and Wright's wife Ramona Watts as background figures.
- "Is the person notable for any other events in their life?" This is slightly less clear, but I'd also say yes. Wright's conflicts with the Australian Tax Office over quite large amounts of money, his building the most powerful privately owned supercomputer (on Top500 here), his founding of a large "Bitcoin bank", etc. are all important in their own right. 2601:643:8500:8C5C:F46E:C25A:C76C:22DE ( talk) 09:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Can be deleted if this all turns out to be wrong, but truth be told I think he's an interesting enough individual in his own right to merit a page regardless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G0T0 ( talk • contribs) 01:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Delete This is now a know hoax, verified by http://motherboard.vice.com/read/satoshis-pgp-keys-are-probably-backdated-and-point-to-a-hoax — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.251.53.173 ( talk) 14:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep for now. Regardless of whether he is truly Nakomoto, this is significant coverage, and his notability probably surpasses this event in any case. Jacona ( talk) 15:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Merge and Move to Incubation - Page is currently better suited in subsection of Satoshi_Nakamoto#Craig_Steven_Wright page, and since the page discusses a current event that is rapidly evolving, the decision to keep or delete should be made later — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.16.168 ( talk) 17:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Craig Steven Wright is already a notable figure for various reasons, such as having made it to the 15th place in the list of the largest supercomputers of the world with a machine that (by all evidence so far) does not exist. Being mistakenly identified as Satoshi Nakamoto is only a small detail of a bigger story. Also, there is now a New York Times article covering the incident. -- 143.106.24.25 ( talk) 20:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The breadth and scope of the reliable and verifiable coverage distinctly about the subject exceeds the minimum standards of notability. Alansohn ( talk) 03:11, 14 December 2015 (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.