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 no consensus. SpartazHumbug! 07:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Founder of the libertarian financial blog Zero Hedge. Fails WP:BASIC. This article is mostly based on primary sources and sources about Zero Hedge that mention Ivanjiiski tangentially. Does not merit a stand-alone article. Schierbecker (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Keep. I agree with the above. --Bduke (talk) 06:34, 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]
@Jtbobwaysf, I took the liberty of looking for any noms made by you that would meet this description. I think you might be thinking of this dual nom where WP:NBASIC was cited. -- Visviva (talk) 06:23, 16 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. —siroχo 08:54, 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. —siroχo 21:50, 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]
Comment. Definitely not a Delete. Despite his pathological desire to be anonymous (e.g. when Nigel Farage was given a breakfast with Ivandjiski in 2012, it made the Spectator), he had coverage in 2009 in his first unmasking in The New Yorker, and Business Insider, and wider SIGCOV in his 2016 unmasking in Forture, Bloomberg, Sydney Morning Herald, and South China Morning Post, and SIGCOV on himself (and his father) in 2022 in The New Republic (which is a WP:RS/P). He also gets quite a lot of WP:BASIC type coverage, such as in The Hill, the Straits Times, CNN Business, the Daily Dot, and CBS News. A search of books here also demonstrates a lot of WP:BASIC coverage. Definitely not a delete, this person, despite his best efforts, is of note. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:36, 13 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? —siroχo 22:16, 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]
After this post on my talk page, I will respectfully withdraw from this AfD. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, in the interest of fairness, so will I. DFlhb (talk) 22:23, 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]
Note: because there seems to be some continuing debate on the quality of the sources, and because a number of the above-linked sources are below the sigcov threshold, I would point to the following as my preferred WP:THREE: New York Magazine (2009), Bloomberg (2016), New Republic (2022). -- Visviva (talk) 04:47, 17 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_creepTalk 08:53, 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.