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.
Keep or redirect there are a number of secondary sources referenced in the page (New Republic, New York Magazine, Bloomberg) but given the (crazy) importance of
Zero Hedge, even if we decided that it doesn't merit a stand-alone article, it would make sense to redirect to the blog's article per
WP:ATD-R.
Jahaza (
talk)
01:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)reply
KeepWeak Delete In the past when I have nominated for afd ceos and founder types (who were not notable for anything except the founding) I received spankings stating there was a notability policy for this version of BLP. Come someone link to that here? Anyone know what I am talking about, or did I hit my head recently? Thanks!
Jtbobwaysf (
talk)
06:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I think you could be right, it was those two nominations that were both founders of Lyft. Both were more or less snow closed to I went away with my tail between my legs. But as you show, there is indeed no policy making founders or CEOs notable, so I retract my above statement. Clearly I hit my head somewhere along the road. I have changed my vote on this, and given that we are talking about a BLP that essentially outs the founder of Zero Hedge, who seemingly wanted to be anon, I think I will lean towards delete on this (also given that sourcing clearly fails GNG
Jtbobwaysf (
talk)
10:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete/redirect. I was a little bit surprised on a
WP:BEFORE, but it seems that aside from the blog, everything else is
WP:ROUTINE, lacking in SIGCOV (jobs, $780 insider trading, marriage/divorce, family). Notability is not inherited and subject does not meet
WP:BIO. Regarding the above voter's note about a special notability poilicy, I think it's probably ANYBIO.2. Personally, I don't think that
WP:ANYBIO.2 applies: Zero Hedge's reliance on conspiracy theories and sensationalism suggests that the individual's contribution will not remain part of the enduring historical record in the field of finance. But I could be convinced otherwise. —
siroχo08:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Retracting my bolded !vote, but my other comments stand. I'm not confident in my determination based on non-blog coverage, whether it counts as significant. —
siroχo21:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete/redirect Past AfD spankings and "crazy" importance of ZeroHedge are not good arguments to keep. I've previous discussed the "number of secondary sources" in this BLP on the ZeroHedge talk page (
link). The argument is short enough that I can repeat it here: The article cites 14 sources. 8 are unacceptable primary sources. The two most-cited sources are about ZeroHedge, and only mention him as a tangent. The only three sources that provide significant coverage of him were all published on the exact same day (WP:RSBREAKING, which should never be the basis for a whole BLP), and are all about him in relation to ZeroHedge. See WP:NOPAGE.
DFlhb (
talk)
18:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Well, you might want to read my post again. I said that due to the importance of Zerohedge (which I referred to as crazy, because of its importance despite its conspiratorial and tabloid nature, not because of the intensity of its importance), we should at least redirect the name, not that we should keep it on that basis. The name of the founder of a notable web site that has been extensively covered by legacy media is at the least a plausible search term, even if the founder is only notable for the web site.
Jahaza (
talk)
18:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I dont think "his pathological desire to be anonymous" is a criteria for us to keep an article. Zerohege is clearly notable, what we are talking about is if the BLP of the founder is notable, or he is just passing mention as part of the publication notability.
Jtbobwaysf (
talk)
23:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Question, is there any notability (that's not a minor personal detail) aside from that inherited from the blog or family? —
siroχo22:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Whether or not he wants to be a public figure, the question is whether it makes sense to have a page separate from
ZeroHedge discussing him. A merge would also be fine, though the target article already seems to mention all the relevant bits (hence my support for redirecting).
WP:OVERLAP strongly applies; articles shouldn't have other articles as 'semi-required' background reading, and any info about him is more relevant to covering ZeroHedge than to covering him. It's better that he be covered in the ZeroHedge article than in this "perma-Start-class" short article with very low views. I don't like us keeping articles that are this short and have minimal prospect for expansion. It's also a pretty strong case of
WP:PSEUDO.
DFlhb (
talk)
08:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)reply
This person has the standalone SIGCOV (2009, 2016, 2022) for
WP:GNG, and in addition is referenced widely enough in media and books for
WP:BASIC. I am sorry Mr. Ivandjiiski, despite your desire for anonymity, you are a textbook case of Wikipedia notability.
Aszx5000 (
talk)
20:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is a great enough difference of opinion here that I think a week's relisting is worth doing. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep. I'm not quite sure what is going on in the above discussion. But I think it is useful to distinguish "has received significant coverage owing to role in Zero Hedge, therefore notable" from "has role in Zero Hedge, therefore notable". The second would be problematic, but the first does not raise any issues that I can discern. On review of the sources posted by Aszx5000 above, it seems to me that the article subject meets the NBASIC requirement of having received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. --
Visviva (
talk)
05:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Strong Delete Looked at the three blocks of references, since the first two blocks only have 6 of the 14 refs.
WP:BLP's need real
WP:SECONDARY sources to be a valid articles and I'm not seeing it, here. Most of the coverage seems to be primary from the blog or part of blog domain. He doesn't seem to have any standalone notability as far as I can a determine. A
WP:BEFORE on the subject, found lots on the blog, mentioned the blog, linked to the blog, in the context of the blog, butnothing on him as an individual outside the blog. Fails
WP:SIGCOV and
WP:BIO. There is no discernable coverage. scope_creepTalk08:53, 20 July 2023 (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.