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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wei Dai[edit]

Wei Dai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable person connected with some notable subjects (Crypto++, Bitcoin & c.). Basically, this guy seems to be a footnote in guessing the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, and that's as far as his personal notability goes. Sources cover the various projects and ancillary topics but not himself. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - At this time, it appears that every single editor except Xinbenlv has been canvassed to this AfD (or miraculously decided to create an account and come straight here, or edit again for the first time in 2 years here...). Glad you kids are having fun at Reddit or wherever, but please don't try the pile-on tactics on Wikipedia, mmkay? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep First of all, the subject of article is absolutely not a footnote only to guess the satoshi's identity.

• It's incorrect to say "connected to", he actually is the creator of the Crypto++ which is an important crypto library, as shown on Crypto++ page.
• Adding to the proof of his notability and importance is, one of the world's most important cryptocurrency, Ethereum, names its smallest unit of currency to be after Mr. Wei Dai. In United States one-dollar bill, the equivalent is George Washington.

the deletion-nomination seems

• ignoring the existing references already in the article citing his direct and indirect contributions to the development of cryptography
• ignoring the article Wei Dai's content itself, which carries his contribution in other cryptography areas.
• and, has not conducted "D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability" as required by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion before nomination

This subject meets notability test by the fact there are multiple reliable news resources reporting his contributions, plus his academic work in patent and scholar paper. In conclusion, I disagree with this notability challenge and deletion. - Xinbenlv (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wei's technical report "b-money" is the first reference of the Bitcoin white paper ^[1]. The smallest value unit in Ethereum is "Wei", which is named after Wei Dai. Therefore, I think this subject definitely meets notability test. Linyufly (talk) 05:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC) — Linyufly (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Jbh ^Talk 16:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "Basically, this guy seems to be a footnote in guessing the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, and that's as far as his personal notability goes" - this just shows how ignorant and disrespect whoever wrote that. Anyone who is serious about cryptocurrency and has done his own due diligence probably should know that Wei Dai is one of the earliest pioneers in this field, and Satoshi suggested this description of Bitcoin: “Bitcoin is an implementation of Wei Dai’s b-money proposal on Cypherpunks in 1998 and Nick Szabo’s Bitgold proposal.” I believe this subject definitely meets notability test. - Zhuzeng Lu (talk) 06:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC) — Zhuzeng Lu (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Jbh ^Talk 16:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll readily own to being ignorant about the topic, and having no respect whatsoever for your idols. It's for you to show their notability to people like me by referencing sources that clearly demonstrate that assessment. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one here is saying the subject is whose idol or not. Basically, a deletion nomination like this regarding WP:N without due diligence or familiarity to the subject is against the policy Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and shall be flagged a vandalism. Such behavior is toxic to the editorial culture. The right way is to add ((notability|date=March 2018)) if you are not familiar to the subject and lack of skills or expertise in the domain to do sufficient due diligence and you are constructively look for other people with expertise to help. - Xinbenlv (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...in which case the article tends to sit there with the tag for three years and nothing happens. I suggest it's preferable to have things clarified in a discussion that then can later be linked to. Vide, if this ends in a clear keep, then the issue is sorted decisively. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae, I understand you were recently granted "new page reviewer", first of all, congratulations! And I appreciate your motivation to clean up things.

What I disagree with is the approach you took, which is without expertise and due diligence, and ignoring existing content and reference on the page, flag a page for deletion. The reason is that this approach forces people to respond. It sometimes means hijacking other editors' time to debate with you, with which they may contribute on other pages or content.

In fact, I think the ultimate rationale behind your behavior (as I noticed in your contributions that you are constantly flagging pages for deletion) is that you disagree with the community's policy about ((notability|date=March 2018)) tag because you doubt its efficiency - and in fact I couldn't help agreeing with this assessment. If this is true, I'd suggest

- (1) you raise your concern about notability tag policy in the appropriate place, rather than constantly combatting new pages out of your expertise domains. And

- (2) prioritize your flag-for-delete contributions on the pages that already have a notability tag for a long time, because you are sure someone else who also cares about the page, and have visted the page prior to your visit have similar doubt of its notability. You won't need to worry that you don't have expertise, because as admins I believe you were using tools to visit a filtered list of pages such as new page, but that usually mean the page visit was not guarantee to be in your expertise domain. But other random viewer's visit has a higher chance to be related to that viewer' domain expertise. I believe that will bring you closer to your goal. Again, I appreciate your contribution of cleaning things.

Xinbenlv (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suffice to say that it seems well understood in the NPP crowd that notability tagging in most cases is just equivalent to passing the buck to an empty place at the table - the related maintenance queues are vast and growing, and chances are that nothing will be done about any specific article any time soon. If a check of provided sources raises reasonable doubt about notability (which I believe to be the case here), I prefer to call for a discussion and get decisive input. I don't buy any accusations about "forcing people to respond" - we are all volunteers that do as much as we want to; the final metric is article quality, not how much or how little work any editor was able to get away with; and if there is need for more expansive comments in an AfD, then the likelihood is that there was need for work on the article. - But let's not turn this into too much of a meta-discussion on notability tags vs AfD nominations, please. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae, I am simply saying this AofD was not filed in compliance with the AofD policy, and it's harmful. Xinbenlv (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As a point of comparison, Hal Finney and Nick Szabo have pages. Mr. Dai doesn't really put himself out there, but he deserves recognition WuTheFWasThat 05:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC) — WuTheFWasThat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Well I'm sorry to "badger" this, but that is as worthless an argument as you could come up with. We don't deal in deserve, we deal in covered. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - every subject has to meet notability requirements on their own; and if "not putting himself out there" translates to "doesn't get substantial coverage", then he fails in that regard. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Removing this page would put a big gap in studying the origins of cryptocurrencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BananaStand (talk • contribs) 14:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC) — BananaStand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep meets WP:NACADEMIC#1, The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, with that discipline being crypto-currencies. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The citations listed by Google Scholar look good, but in the field of computer science thousands of citations are pretty routine, so Wei Dai's 770 citations and h-index of 8 are not all that impressive. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

b-money was cited by Bitcoin whitepaper and Ethereum whitepaper. Xinbenlv (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.