Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Gokhshtein

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rescendent (talk | contribs) at 16:38, 5 October 2023 (→‎David Gokhshtein: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

David Gokhshtein

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

David Gokhshtein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(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]

  • 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 — if all it took to get into Wikipedia was for the article to say that the person was an expert without having to have their expertise independently validated by third-party reliable source coverage independent of themselves, then everybody on earth could bypass our inclusion standards just by designating themselves an "expert" in something. So Wikipedia is 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]
    I do not know, you haven't linked to the papers. The two I could read, one was trivial, other didn't mention him. Oaktree b (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The one you are saying doesn't mention you are reading a short summary (public availability) but can confirm via the scholar search I linked and you can read the full version in the Wikipedia Library Rescendent (talk) 14:28, 2 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)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Pat-Bassey Charles (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [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) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Rescendent (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [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]

You're not an experienced Wikipedian and it shows. You clearly don't understand the fact that all crypto publications are basically pay for play promotional publications, and thus the consensus is that they are considered unreliable and do not count for notability. This even includes arguably the most reliable crypto publication, CoinDesk, see WP:COINDESK, so if that doesn't count for notability, then random obscure crypto publications like "coincu", "The Coin Republic." and "Block Publisher" certainly don't. Press releases from Gokhsteins company, being interviewed on obscure podcasts and Fox Business and having short mentions in research papers is not signficiant coverage either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple journals WP:SOURCETYPES, Bloomberg, Yahoo! News (non syndicated), WP:FOXNEWS (non-politics or science), WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS are all reliable sources; why are they all talking to, quoting, referring to or analysing this individual's tweets if they are non-notable? Rescendent (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're reliable, yes, the coverage is trivial. Fox News I wouldn't touch, based on their admitted history of lying, but that's just me. We need stories about this fellow, not him being mentioned in articles about something else. No one has presented anything otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't edited in a very long time and my current experience does make me understand: Sayers, Freddie (2021-12-14). "Wikipedia co-founder: I no longer trust the website I created". Unheard.; don't worry is interview and non-reliable source :P Rescendent (talk) 08:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CREATIVE#1. It says "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". Either of the statements satisfied WP:CREATIVE. It doesn't have to be both. Shoerack (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A cryptocurrency entrepreneur is clearly not what is meant by "creative professional" under any reasonable definition of that term. He's a relatively minor player in cryptocurrency circles anyway, compared to someone like Vitalik Buterin or Justin Sun and cannot be considered influential. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is he a "cryptocurrency entrepreneur"? I think you are conflating two different things; that being a social media influencer/journalist with a strong cryptocurrency leaning and an entrepreneur which are not the same things. Rescendent (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is not widely cited by peers. He isn't even mildly cited. He's also a business professional, not an artistc creator. Oaktree b (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is WP:JOURNALIST and founded a news/media company. All the "soundbites" on Bloomberg News, Yahoo! News (non syndicated), WP:FOXNEWS (non-politics or science), WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS, NPR, CNBC Indonesia are being cited by his peers as each on refers to him as the founder of said news organisation. Rescendent (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So we can't apply CREATIVE notability for JOURNALISTS. Please select one. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why am I selecting one about a different editors comments? Also CREATIVE and JOURNALIST are same link (go to same place) Rescendent (talk) 08:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I personally think it should be cleaned up thoroughly and the entire Social Media Influence subsection and Views and Advocacy section be removed. Seeing LinkedIn as a reference here alone gives me a headache.

I had created two blockchain related articles (this and that) and quit contributing anything around it because the kind of sources that covers the best of works that is done on the blockchain scene would still have a tough passage on Wikipedia.

Maybe it's time we had WikiProject Blockchain to put up standards to weed out what is not acceptable. If anyone would start that, I would be at your back.Danidamiobi (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Danidamiobi (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

May you state why you are voting keep? Mach61 (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The presence of David Gokhshtein in verifiable and reliable sources, extensively covering his activities and influence within social media, attests to his notability. This substantial coverage demonstrates that he has made a noteworthy impact within his sphere, aligning with Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline WP: GNG. Retaining his article aligns with Wikipedia's commitment to providing comprehensive and informative content to its readers, especially in acknowledging individuals who have achieved recognition and influence in the digital age." --Oludegun (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Oludegun (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Note: I've tagged over half a dozen accounts that have participated in this discussion, because they all appear to be infrequently active and all of them self-identify as Nigerian and/or edit about Nigeria-related topics (a country that as far as I can tell, Gokhshtein has no real connection with). It seems highly unlikely to me that this is activity from accounts that found this AfD by regular means, and the only plausible explanation seems to me to be that they were canvassed to this discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is certainly an unusually 'messy' AfD... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr Gokhshtein is an internet and social media personality that talks about cryptocurrency. Internet and social media is global, beyond the USA, Canada, UK etc and cryptocurrency is digital (used globally too). Most social media personalities are known and have connections beyond their countries of origin or residence. For instance,
    • This is CNBC Indonesia news article citing Mr Gokhshtein
    • This Here is a Nigerian news article that cited Mr Gokhshtein
    • Another one here and here
    • There are articles in Spanish, all citing Mr Gokhshtein.
    I do not understand your decision to tag Nigerian editors participating in this AfD simply because they are Nigerians. That is not nice, not nice in anyway whatsoever. Well, this is a discussion and I'll leave it at that. Corrugateboard (talk) 06:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're almost certainly canvassed/UPE too, so I hardly think this is an unbiased opinion.
    Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @Hemiauchenia: I found your tagging of my comment as "canvassing" disruptive. How did you come to the conclusion that I had been canvassed? If I had commented in support of "deleting" this article, would you have said that I was canvassed? That said, do not ever try to second-guess or link users to any country if they have not posted about their country anywhere on Wikipedia. It amounts to harassment to do that. You did tag the comment of the article creator as if they were canvassed too. Did you expect to take their article for deletion and have them not comment here? When we nominate an article for deletion, we expect and encourage the article creator to participate in the debate to give them a chance to explain why they think the article is notable enough to merit a stand-alone page here. And for new people, such as the creator of this article, it would provide them with an opportunity to learn more about what we consider notable. Tagging their comment as if they are canvassing in favour of your position is very disruptive, and I have taken the liberty to strike your tag on their comment and mine. Shoerack (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Admittedly my looking at your edits was cursory, and you editing patterns are a lot less suspicious than the other editors I tagged, and I still stand by those taggings. I never tagged the article creator that was someone else, and the SPA tag is perfectly valid, though I suspect their article creation was an act of UPE too.
    Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion about others as I am not familiar with their editing history to draw any conclusion. Rescendent did not create this article; it was created by Corrugateboard. Shoerack (talk) 06:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't create the article; I just applied WP:FIXIT before voting since it was a new editor everyone seemed to be using WP:GHITS (in a weird way, saying too many) and WP:IDONTLIKEIT/WP:ITSCRUFT about the subject having crypto currency connections. I did initially agree was a non-notable politician; but after research found the subject was clearly notable but for a different topic and was getting an unfair WP:PPOV from politician/area editors; so sought to improve the article instead.
On the other hand you suggested the article creator Corrugateboard as "certainly canvassed/UPE" and marked their vote as WP:SPA which is very WP:BITE and then proceeded to mark everyone else (except me because you thought I created it) as canvassed; but in comment also saying I am UPE. While such an accusation doesn't fall under WP:UNCIVIL it definitely doesn't WP:AGF; where is you evidence? Rescendent (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OMG you literally tagged everyone who voted "keep" as canvassed suggesting there is no reason anyone could vote otherwise even though this AFD is on 27 wiki project pages (deletion sorting or project category) Rescendent (talk) 08:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Right. Here we go:

  • Pat-Bassey Charles No presence on Wikipedia since 29 July 2023, lands at this AfD 25 September & votes Keep. Vast majority of all contributions to Wikipedia outside this AfD are directly connected with Nigerian topics.
  • 2600:6C56:6E09:2143:7529:128C:C934:6BA9 Sole contribution to Wikipedia is a keep vote on this AfD.
  • Dfertileplain No presence on Wikipedia since 30 June 2023, lands here 2 October, makes 5 edits within half an hour and then votes at this AfD... keep, of course. Vast majority of all contributions to Wikipedia outside this AfD are directly connected with Nigerian topics.
  • Yemi festus Inactive since 17 August barring one edit on 28 September and then rocks up here on the 4th October with a keep vote. Over 99% of all contributions outside this AfD are directly connected with Nigerian topics.
  • Danidamiobi Inactive since 30 August bar two edits on 19 September and one on 21 September. And then over to this AfD on 5 October with a keep vote. Vast majority of all contributions to Wikipedia outside this AfD are directly connected with Nigerian topics.

I'm not going to go on. Hemiauchenia has every right to be very, very suspicious and I'll happily add my name to the list of very suspicious people. This whole AfD has been traduced by COI/UPE players - I've never seen the like of it, TBH. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find it unlikely Yemi festus specifically was canvassed; they’re a productive editor and made a valid policy based argument Mach61 (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP address is Texan; however their reason doesn't really count as WP:NOTFREESPEECH; other than that outlier Hemiauchenia and you seem mainly to be complaining about people you suspect to be Nigerians.
According to Cryptocurrency in Nigeria 32% of participating Nigerians used cryptocurrencies; wiki even has a page for it; so perhaps being on WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cryptocurrency is related to Nigerian topics, idk.
However using an edit gap of a couple months and that you suspect them of being Nigerian seems very WP:PREJUDICED when 3 of 4 are WP:XCON and other is WP:CONFIRM editors and fairly close to being WP:XCON. Rescendent (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Gokhshtein&oldid=1178748273"