Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Chen (2nd nomination)

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 13:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Chen

AfDs for this article:

[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)

All sources later than the 2018 AfD are either passing mentions or NCRYPTO fails. Fermiboson (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Cryptocurrency, and United States of America. Fermiboson (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails general and academic-related notability guidelines. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete didn't meet notability last time, still doesn't meet notability now. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject of the previous AfD is unrelated, an associate professor of psychology at Fordham University. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found this through the academic deletion sorting list but Chen appears to have no academic notability whatsoever. The article (and the related Injective Labs) appeared to be making the claim that Chen and Injective were somehow affiliated with Stanford University, but that appears to be false. Instead, we need to go through WP:GNG and WP:NCRYPTO, but I agree that most sources in the article fail the reliability determination in NCRYPTO, and therefore do not contribute to GNG-based notability. I checked three book sources that superficially looked better (Dolev, Slayton, and Jarvis) and found no mention of Chen at all in any of them. My own searches found nothing else. The article on Injective Labs could also use some scrutiny. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he is not notable as academic. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2024 (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.