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. Subject does not appear to meet notability criteria at this time. Lengthy argument about the subject's accomplishments is not a substitute for reliable third-party sources. RL0919 (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie Middleton[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Reggie Middleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Promotional page for cryptocurrency promoter. No evidence of notability, either under WP:GNG or any more specific criterion. WP:BEFORE shows extensive coverage in cryptocurrency sites, but almost nothing in RSes - just passing mentions and occasional columns by the subject; none of the sort of coverage required for a WP:BLP. Needs strong, mainstream sourcing, strong enough to support the presence of a BLP, to avoid deletion. David Gerard (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Obviously fails WP:NBIO, and is promotional. But why is it listed on 'fictional elements' deletion list? Ping User:CAPTAIN RAJU (can you revert that categorization?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Moderators/editors have been extremely discriminatory in regards to Reggie Middleton article by granting business news citation RS status to MakerDao and other entities, yet state that it is not RS for or Reggie Middleton. Either business news sites are or are not reliable sources. They cannot be reliable for one, and not the other. It was also mentioned that his business media appearances were mere mentions. This is far from the truth. He has won the CNBC Stock Draft challenge two years in a row, and this has been cited with video directly off of the CNBC web site - with video totally at least 15 minutes long. He has been on the show dozens of times with extensive interviews. The same goes for Bloomberg, RT, etc. These are all RS, and they are consistently removed. He has been credited with inventing decentralized finance and explained his invention in detail on CNBC and RT, multiple times in extensive interviews. Those interview have been included with links directly to those media properties, and they have been respectively delete, yet Bloomberg and CNBC articles are considered RS throughout Wikipedia for other subjects. This is abject discrimination. He has been feature in full length documentaries by renown and accredited media outlets, i.e.VPRO our of Europe, with links directly to those properties movies, yet those links have been deleted. All of his accomplishments post 2014 have been removed. The moderator who opened this deletion request has been corrected many times, yet shows palpable bias. His most egregious act (out of very, very many) is his deletion of the granting of a patent application valid in 38 jurisdictions around the world, including the majority of the G20. It was granted by the 4th largest economy in the world and one of the most respected patent offices in the world. A quick primer on the art, a granted patent citation was included, and a patent is the highest possible level of proof of invention, inventive step, innovation and industrial utility, yet the moderator above deletes reference to it repeatedly with the reason being lack of RS. This is despite deep precedence of elaborate explanation of inventors & inventions on Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_inventors. It is incredulous to even allude to the fact that the Japan Patent Office is not a reliable source, then turn around to say some reporter at Bloomberg is a reliable source. Even so, Middleton has plenty of Bloomberg sources as well. If you think the material is biased, then by Wiki's own guidelines edit it for neutrality, but gross and rampant discrimination is not neutrality. There are a lot of Wiki users who have witnessed what this man has done, and is doing, and it looks downright horrible. He apparently has an implicit (explicit?) bias and motivation, for it has been brought up that he is an author of a crypto critical book, "Attack of the 50 ft Blockchain". I implore all to safeguard the credibility of wiki by making sure it remains neutral and unbiased. The mere mention of deleting the Reggie Middleton article, or disallowing a raft of highly independent and credible sources (a global superpower's patent office - come on guys...) as not reliable is a travesty, particularly when they are allowed elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberethno (talk • contribs) 12:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC) — Uberethno (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• It seems as though Reggie Middleton exceeds the criteria for https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) and he has much wider depth than just in the crypto scene but was investor and financial analysis before crypto EVEN existed.

Corroborated by CNBC, Bloomberg, CNN, BBC, RT AND his blog "Boom Bust" Reggie called the collapse of bear sterns 2 months before it happened as well as the fall of lehman brothers before anyone had a clue. Hes sold his research to institutional investors since 2007 and VERY early on caught on to the crypto space.

Infact he was so early and had such a breadth of knowledge in finance already, that he invented the first DEFI in 2013, filed his earliest patent on it in 2015 and was awarded the patent by japan late in to 2020.

Having recognized and expressed the need for disintermediation in financial markets (middlemen fees taking most of people's returns) then actually being the FIRST EVER to solve that problem through Veritaseum - i'm seeing him as a VERY notable, significant, INTERESTING, and Unique/Unusual addition to Wikipedia Bios!

When you call history before it happens, then make history by innovating the way things are done... that deserves a wiki bio at least right?

Sounds Notable to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxwellSwanson (talk • contribs) 08:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC) — MaxwellSwanson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Reading here the first response from the Moderator, he is wrongly saying that editors are using as sources cryptocurrency sites(ironically on the whole Wiki article there are very few references to cryptocurrencies, rather it's mostly about Macroeconomy and Technology) and at the same time he cries for a lack of mainstream sourcing( isn't CNBC, Bloomberg, the Huff Post mainstream enough? ).Also it's not understandable how come the Moderator proposes to delete the entire Wiki page, soon as the paragraph on the JPO patent has been added(coincidence??), with a direct source to the JPO's patent file and registration number, while still continuing to use the excuse of lack of mainstream sourcing(on a separate discussion I've asked him twice what does the JPO patent paragraph and patent link have as wrong, he continued with the lack of independant sourcing rhetoric. It would had been more tolerable if Moderator would had just suggested(not deleted) the edits/corrections needed to be done instead of deleting all content; ironically he left as the last essay that on Aug 13th 2019 SEC has charged Reggie Middleton of fraud, but Moderator had deleted all the essays and docs as of the Defendant (clearly a sign of heavy bias from the Moderator's side). I'd want to hear from the Moderator how come he considers as promotional the mentioning of some Economic Forecasts , while on most Wiki pages of famous economists (like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouriel_Roubini#Economic_forecast ) there are amazingly lenghty paragraphs of detailed forecasts...yet Moderator doesn't call them promotional or excessively sourced. Also I found it disturbing that Wikipedia let's this Moderator have a say on pages like Reggie's Middleton or on the DeFi page, while on his personal profile has the mentioning of a book "Attack of the 50 ft Blockchain" and with clear biased opinions against the Cryptocurrency and Blockchain sector. There is a stark Conflict of Interest between this Moderator and the pages he censor. He should be dealing with other kind of Topics, not with a biased topic.Mucimucimuc (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC) — Mucimucimuc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• I don't understand why this page is up for deletion, it has plenty of verified sources, the most crucial one being the granting of a patent by the Japan Patent Office for Reggie Middleton as you can see clearly here^[1] . Reginald Middleton is clearly named on the patent as you can see and there is an overview of what it covers - "Between 2 parties with no or little trust relationship, there is no special technical knowledge of the underlying transfer mechanism for any distance. A device, system, and method that allows for the establishment of a value transfer contract, contingent on input from third parties or third party participation, and which can be enforced, and optionally can be substituted, replaced, revised, revised, and the like. It is also possible to generate such a value transfer without involving exposure to the merchant risk and the expensive third party intermediaries that have heretofore been required." It describes what has become known as 'Decentralised Finance' - a zero-trust value-transfer mechanism. Granting of a patent is the highest accreditation of originality and absolutely qualifies someone as an 'Inventor' or as 'Notable'. Why is this not taken into account? Not to mention all the other achievements and appearances on mainstream news networks. I would need to see very clear reasoning on the moderators side before I understood such a decision. Please provide it immediately. Edjohn46 (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC) — Edjohn46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• I would like to add further comments and citations to this discussion, I believe they are all 'Reliable Sources'. Reggie Middleton as a contributor to the Huffington Post, almost 20 articles ^[2], An entire article on Reggie Middleton by Forbes ^[3], Reggie Middleton on Bloomberg ^[4], Reggie Middleton on VPRO(Dutch Public Broadcasting) 22:30 - 24:45, 40:00 - 41:00 ^[5], and again in this documentary 31:15 - 37:15 ^[6], Reggie Middleton winning CNBC's stock draft ^[7], and again on CNBC here ^[8] and here ^[9], and many appearances on RT's Keiser Report ^{[10] [11] [12] [13] [14]} Please let me know if any of these are inappropriate to use as sources for a Wikipedia page. Edjohn46 (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)— Edjohn46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • None of these are about Middleton. They are Middleton as pundit, and the relevant criterion for the notability you're claiming there is WP:CREATOR, which those don't meet. Also, RT is a deprecated source that can't be used as evidence of notability. I urge you to read up on Wikipedia sourcing and notability rules, you're repeatedly saying things that don't address them at all - David Gerard (talk) 12:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CREATOR - "Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." Does appearing on many mainstream media channels such as CNBC, Huffington Post and Bloomberg not count for the first point? The Forbes article is entirely about him. Does holding a patent not count for the second point? I will cite the patent once again as you are still not addressing it and I'm very confused why not.^[1] Surely a patent is the highest evidence of notability? I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Edjohn46 (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)— Edjohn46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • No, it just means he's a pundit. Where are the biographical articles about Middleton? And no, anyone can apply for a patent - Surely a patent is the highest evidence of notability? is a nonsensical statement - David Gerard (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are quite correct that anyone can apply for a patent. Where you are completely wrong is that this patent has been GRANTED. Therefore the invention must meet certain criteria, such as novelty, usefulness and non-obviousness. There is a vast difference between a patent application and patent which has been granted. If you had actually bothered to check the source you would have seen that without me having to spell it out for you here. If you need more information on what a patent actually is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent . You keep calling him a 'pundit' in a derogatory manner, when he actually is a journalist and author (as referenced by his contributions to HuffPost which I have cited) and a financial analyst (as referenced by his many financial calls on reputable news sources such as Bloomberg and CNBC which I have also cited). And anyway, a pundit just means a journalist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pundit and so is covered under the aforementioned WP:CREATOR. I have clearly laid out a case for the Wikipedia page of 'Reggie Middleton' to be maintained. I believe it is you who is not making any sense. Edjohn46 (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)— Edjohn46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• The mod — Mucimucimuc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• I'm flabbergasted to read the Moderator's last comments("anyone can apply for a patent"), without understanding that the JPO patent mentioned before the censorship, it was granted(not only applied or filed) and then here proved with a registration number and all details using as source the direct link of the JPO office. Also not clear the Moderator's definition of "Pundit" when it could be applied to any person doing a significant work, of being famous and to appear on mainstream media sources. With this kind of logic he should be using the same logic as in many notorious economists,analysts,journalists etc... Yet Moderator ,once again,fails to clearly justify the full censorship of the Wiki pageMucimucimuc (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)— Mucimucimuc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete – The high volume of reasonably presumptive WP:Sockpuppetry and WP:COI editing, both past and present, that went into this WP:BLP article (as well as the associated disruptive & promotional edits at Decentralized finance) makes its much more difficult for any uninvolved, good-faith editor to try and sift through and salvage this article. If it even meets notability guidelines for a BLP to begin with. Therefore, I say WP:Blow it up and start over. If notability does exist, the heavily involved editor(s) should take the time to learn what WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability means and then start with a clean slate if they believe the subject is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Also see WP:Delete the junk for more reasoning on why it's better to start from scratch.
  –– ^Hidden_{Lemon /}^{/ talk} 00:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to state for the record that this is my only wikipedia account, I have no investments with Reggie Middleton or his companies and no one asked me to be here. I ask the same question to you as I did before - does holding a GRANTED patent and being a widely known journalist, author and financial analyst meet the criteria for WP:Notability? Is the Japan Patent Office considered a 'Reliable Source'? Are CNBC, Bloomberg and Forbes 'Reliable Sources'? Do the links that I have provided for those sources meet the criteria for WP:Verifiability? I would be happy to rewrite the whole wikipedia page if I could be sure that David Gerard wouldn't put another strike against it because I feel that he: has a WP:COI due to writing biased books about blockchain and Bitcoin; doesn't understand the difference between a patent application and a granted patent and the significance of the latter; did not adequately research the sources I provided and so made erroneous comments about their nature. These points make him unsuitable to be a moderator for this wikipedia page. I will happily submit to any uninvolved, good-faith editor for my re-write. Thank you for your time. Edjohn46 (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)— Edjohn46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • The four of you just write in the same style at the same length with the same quirks making the same bad arguments repeatedly - David Gerard (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even someone with a basic grasp of linguistics could see that that is not the case. You have displayed yourself to be completely biased in this matter. Once again you have ignored the main point - does holding a GRANTED patent and being a widely known journalist, author and financial analyst meet the criteria for WP:Notability? Is the Japan Patent Office considered a 'Reliable Source'? Are CNBC, Bloomberg and Forbes 'Reliable Sources'? Do the links that I have provided for those sources meet the criteria for WP:Verifiability? I am happy to discuss my reasoning with any moderator (excluding yourself, as I fear it would not be productive). Edjohn46 (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)— Edjohn46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
        • The patent link is evidence that the patent exists; it does not confer notability (you don't get an article for filing a patent). The links you gave are appearances as a pundit, not biographical information about Middleton showing his notability as a journalist. You can ignore me pointing this out to you, but it's still how Wikipedia notability rules work - David Gerard (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the patent has been granted for something that has it's own Wikipedia page i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_finance , does that confer notability? In your understanding the invention should have a wikipedia page but the inventor should not, and nothing about that inventor should be mentioned on the invention page? That makes no sense. I'm afraid you truly do not grasp the contents or impact of the patent because you have not read it. Edjohn46 (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)— Edjohn46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
            • DeFi is not a patentable invention, it’s an abstract term describing a category of applications. You will need numerous substantive RS’s to verifiably claim that this person “invented” DeFi, which you’re welcome to try and prove on a fresh Draftspace article if/when this page is deleted. ^Hidden_{Lemon /}^{/ talk} 18:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • But this is exactly why I'm sounding like a broken record, because you are both missing the point. The patent has been granted for a zero-trust decentralised value transfer system. This is the overview "Between 2 parties with no or little trust relationship, there is no special technical knowledge of the underlying transfer mechanism for any distance. A device, system, and method that allows for the establishment of a value transfer contract, contingent on input from third parties or third party participation, and which can be enforced, and optionally can be substituted, replaced, revised, revised, and the like. It is also possible to generate such a value transfer without involving exposure to the merchant risk and the expensive third party intermediaries that have heretofore been required." This is literally a patent for the whole of Decentralised Finance! I don't need multiple sources, I just need one, the patent itself! If you would only read it you would understand. But I guess that's not your job as a moderator, or is it? Have you read the patent? Edjohn46 (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)— Edjohn46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
                • I'm not a moderator and yes, I have read it. The patent is so vague, abstract, theoretical, etc. that I'm not surprised that it was rejected twice for a lack of clarity. Whatever the reason for it being granted on the third try, it still doesn't prove that Middleton "invented" DeFi or anything else for that matter. With a patent so broadly construed as "a zero-trust decentralised value transfer system" or as a "patent for the whole of Decentralised Finance," you may as well be trying to claim that Reggie Middleton is Satoshi Nakamoto. That doesn't even consider the fact that concept and term, DeFi, existed before the patent application was submitted. ^Hidden_{Lemon /}^{/ talk} 06:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • You're saying things over and over that don't address the issue. You're doing what's called at Wikipedia original research - you're claiming the patent is sufficient evidence for the claim you're making, but you keep not producing independent, reliable, verifiable, third-party sources that you could cite to make this claim. Not that that would necessarily rate an article for Middleton either. So you're harping on a point that isn't how anything at Wikipedia works, and doesn't do the work you want it to do to make Middleton rate an article. I urge you yet again to read Wikipedia sourcing, content and notability policies, and come up with arguments that address them - instead of typing words and words and words that just don't address them. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is not an argument strategy that will do well for you - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2021 (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.