Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Gokhshtein

David Gokhshtein

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

American entrepreneur, internet and media personality, and former politician - who achieves notability under none of these roles. Not elected to office, not feted widely in media, no track record of significant entrepreneurialism and all sourced to Fox blurbs, owned media and interview. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Websites, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hits in Gnews all talk about crypto, so I suspect this is some sort of promotion. Back to the article, being a member and writer for the Forbes Council is non-notable; we don't consider it a RS, so being a writer for it would not help. Rest is non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly read the article again. It is clearly non promotional.. Corrugateboard (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It helps boost Google Search results, so does help promote it. SEO is a concern. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:HEY please check again as has been significantly updated Rescendent (talk) 07:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should now pass via WP:SNG on WP:BASIC notability via academic WP:SOURCETYPES Rescendent (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm new here and don't know what people say to win arguments. He's an expert in his field and I am under the impression that Wikipedia is for experts in their professions even when we don't agree with the profession or the profession doesn't align with our personal convictions. I'm saying keep Corrugateboard (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC) — Corrugateboard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
We aren't here to win, we're looking for reliable sources to use in the article, showing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Crypto-crap. Though the sheer number of GHits makes searching difficult, I could not find any WP:SIGCOV about him in reliable sources after a thorough-ish search. As he did not contest the congressional primary, I'm don't think redirection there is a valid WP:ATD. Curbon7 (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Crypto-crap" is a little WP:IDONTLIKEIT?

Are multiple hits in GBooks and GScholar either for his name or analysing his twitter account 'davidgokhshtein'. So it can be highlighted that academic research has recognized David Gokhshtein's notable influence within cryptocurrency social media circles. For instance, in the study analyzing Electra's Twitter community, Gokhshtein is identified as one of the most influential actors, underscoring his recognized position within this domain. This evidence contributes towards establishing his notability, as it reflects a level of significance and impact in the cryptocurrency community, thereby warranting his inclusion on Wikipedia.

I have added additional references to the page to the books and journals he is analysed in. Rescendent (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not "for experts in their professions" per se, it's for people who have the degree of reliable source coverage about them needed to pass a notability criterion. But the sourcing here is not coverage about him for the purposes of satisfying WP:GNG — it's coverage about other things which merely quotes him as a provider of soundbite, which is not what we require. Unelected candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates; founders of companies do not automatically get Wikipedia articles just for founding companies; and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are multiple published papers and a Columbia University Press book which examine the influence of his twitter account about independent topics and from independent researchers; does this not establish notability? (Have updated page with references and additional details) Rescendent (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding on above article satisfies the purpose of WP:SNG via WP:BASIC notability though analysis of his tweets in multiple independent academic sources which Wikipedia considers the most reliable WP:SOURCETYPES.
- Caliskan, Koray (2022). "Data money makers: An ethnographic analysis of a global cryptocurrency community". The British Journal of Sociology. 73: 168–187. doi:10.1111/1468-4446.12916
- Caliskan, Koray (August 1, 2023). "Chapter 4: Global Cryptocurrency Communities as Data Money Makers". *Data Money: Inside Cryptocurrencies, Their Communities, Markets, and Blockchains. Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231209592
- Guidi, Barbara; Michienzi, Andrea (2022). "How to reward the web: the social dApp yup". Online Social Networks and Media. Elsevier. 31: 100–229. doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2022.100229
- Tjahyana, Lady Joanne (2021). Brand Monitoring for Dogecoin Cryptocurrency on Twitter (PhD thesis). Petra Christian University
- Schnülle, Tim (2021). Algorithmic trading with cryptocurrencies - Does twitter sentiment impact short-term price fluctuations in Bitcoin (MSc). Nova School of Business and Economics. p. 49
Additionally other sources regularly mentioning, quoting and interviewing fit under "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers" WP:JOURNALIST (1.) although not as reliable sources as the academic ones. Rescendent (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the first is a name drop, the rest have no links. The Guidi article doensn't mention this person at all. The first one is on the Pubmed website, so can be read easily enough... Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned in other reply you can confirm the the Guidi article does mention when checking via handle in GScholar (as well as other papers) and WP:PAPERONLY/WP:OSO is clearly listed as WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Offline_sources_only. However they can be confirmed via a correct GScholar search. Rescendent (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does not mention the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It says "and davidgokhshtein, a politician and financial consultant, with great interest in all cryptocurrencies"; how is this not mentioning the individual? Rescendent (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While this individual fails WP:NPOL, he does seem to be a notable figure in the cryptocurrency community and has been regarded as such by multiple independent, reliable sources. Pat-Bassey Charles (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which reliable sources? Curbon7 (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:SOURCETYPES

> When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.
As his tweets have been studied in multiple peer-reviewed journals, an academic text book and both a PhD and MSc dissertation that pass via WP:BASIC notability?
Caliskan, Koray (2022). "Data money makers: An ethnographic analysis of a global cryptocurrency community". The British Journal of Sociology. 73: 168–187. doi:10.1111/1468-4446.12916

Caliskan, Koray (August 1, 2023). "Chapter 4: Global Cryptocurrency Communities as Data Money Makers". Data Money: Inside Cryptocurrencies, Their Communities, Markets, and Blockchains. Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231209592

Guidi, Barbara; Michienzi, Andrea (2022). "How to reward the web: the social dApp yup". Online Social Networks and Media. Elsevier. 31: 100–229. doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2022.100229

Tjahyana, Lady Joanne (2021). Brand Monitoring for Dogecoin Cryptocurrency on Twitter (PhD thesis). Petra Christian University

Schnülle, Tim (2021). Algorithmic trading with cryptocurrencies - Does twitter sentiment impact short-term price fluctuations in Bitcoin (MSc). Nova School of Business and Economics. p. 49
Rescendent (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. The first one is literally a one-line mention in a chart, and it's a username that just happens to match the subject here (it could be anyone). It talks about an entirely different crypto currency. The rest have no links, so I can't evaulate them. He's not mentioned in the Guidi article you cite either. I'd revisit your sources, perhaps re-read them. A name drop in an article (peer-reviewed) or not, beyond proving existence, isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion about the 'entirely different cryptocurrency' requires clarification. Which cryptocurrency are you referring to as different? The mention of davidgokhshtein in diverse crypto contexts just further underscores his broader notability within the cryptocurrency community, showcasing a wide-ranging impact that extends beyond a single cryptocurrency. This aligns with the subject's recognized persona and influence across various digital currency platforms, further warranting his inclusion on Wikipedia. The individual academic mention you highlight, though brief, in a peer-reviewed publication, is a noteworthy acknowledgment in scholarly discourse, supplementing other evidence of his notability from the other multiple sources. Additionally, per WP:PAPERONLY, the lack of online links to the cited offline sources does not undermine their validity or relevance in supporting notability.

You can confirm he is referred to in the Guidi article and others via Google Scholar search if you use his twitter handle: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22DavidGokhshtein%22&btnG= which is entirely expected as he is a social media influencer; though he also shows up for other papers with full name (which is just adding a space in handle).

As per WP:NBASIC the papers demonstrate multiple reliable sources, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject and as per policy: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" Rescendent (talk) 06:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article is about a cryptocurrency, not about David. David is only listed as a username in a chart. I can't make it any clearer. Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY - As per WP:FIXIT I have improved layout; categorisation and extended the referencing; including multiple references in journals; dissertations and a book to his twitter handle. The pervious focus on political candidate wasn't very notable, however isn't really the area of notability which is more the categories: Category:Social media influencers and Category:People associated with cryptocurrency Rescendent (talk) 08:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although it may sound controversial freedom of speech is still protected in the USA along with Free-Press & Free Interpretation that being said anything about the tech industry you should always do your own research but not many people have the adequate knowledge or understanding on how to extract facts from fictions or in this case personal believes. I vote for this article to stay open and not be altered or deleted in any way shape or form. 2600:6C56:6E09:2143:7529:128C:C934:6BA9 (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC) — 2600:6C56:6E09:2143:7529:128C:C934:6BA9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This user's sole contribution to Wikipedia... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TDLI: Freedom of speech isn't a reason to include. While Wikipedia is not censored WP:NOTCENSORED it is also WP:NOTFREESPEECH and articles need to pass WP:NOTE for notability to be included. Rescendent (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Freedom of speech" does not confer any entitlements to inclusion in Wikipedia in the absence of passing Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Private speech is not protected. Wiki is a private institution. Oaktree b (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to review wikipedia licensing, we can cut and modify articles at will as new information is added or removed. If you want to keep a copy as-is, it should not be on wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions, list of People-related deletion discussions, list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Rescendent (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Rescendent (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a lot of stuff in the article and plenty of sources, but I can't find the in-depth coverage in reliable and verifiable sources that would be about him needed to meet the notability standard. Most of the sources are mentions, brief interviews of him, interviews he did and tweets, but there is no support for a claim of notability, nor could I find anything more useful in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:SOURCETYPES

> When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.

As his tweets have been studied in multiple peer-reviewed journals, an academic text book and both a PhD and MSc dissertation that would suggest notability via WP:BASIC? Other sources mentioning, quoting and interviewing fit under WP:JOURNALIST (1.) although not as reliable sources as the academia ones. Rescendent (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They have not, the peer-reviews are about different subjects, that mention him in passing. The first one is about a type of crypto currency, with a username that could or could not be this person. The rest are about as useless. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> with a username that could or could not be this person

Not sure I understand your point; as a social media influencer establishing the fact that they are indeed the same person is a fairly important aspect and not something to be brushed over as "could be someone random"? Rescendent (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
David is mentioned as a username, once. That is not substantial coverage. There is no proof it's the same individual (the article does not verify the identity of the username), and the subject of that article is not about David. Being listed in a chart is not what we require for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is not significant and does not pass WP:GNG. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is about a person so WP:SNG applies and specifically WP:BASIC and WP:JOURNALIST Rescendent (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the above comments; does not meet WP:GNG. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is hilarious. You didn't even read the article. Corrugateboard (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]