Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel M. Ziff

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. Article has been improved to better show notability/coverage. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel M. Ziff

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

This person in not notable according to WP:GNG. Nothing's on the article makes him notable.Even though his father is a notable, but the notability is not inherited.Thus, This article should be deleted, lacking notability. Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 15:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge to father/family. No indication of notability per WP:GNG or otherwise. If he's done anything noteworthy/unusual himself, then he may merit an article, but there's not evidence of that. The included references don't offer sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG - being mentioned solely in the context of his father doesn't count. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The man inherits 1/3rd of $1.4B in 1994 and turns it into $4.2B in 2012 through his own investment decisions. How is that not notable? Why then do we have wikipages for Walton family members like James Carr Walton who dot even make their own investment decisons. Also, why the big rush to delete a page that has just been created?Patapsco913 (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of Hedge Fund, Private Equity Titans - http://www.finalternatives.com/node/7219 - none of these guys are passive investors. The fact that they inherited their money or not is irrelevant.Patapsco913 (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 18:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable individual. As #97 on the Forbes 400 richest Americans, I believe there would be plenty more to write about him. I can think of investment philosophy, philanthropy and family as starters. Clearly notable. Vertium (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Searching for "Daniel Ziff" (without the middle initial) yields verifiable reliable sources regarding notability. --William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 19:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An individual worth $4.2B is apt to be in the public eye. Listings on the Forbes lists pretty much gets this subject over the notability bar for me. Far-reaching import as the heir to the Ziff-Davis Publishing empire again goes to notability. Carrite (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Forbes article only talks about the Ziff brothers in general. To meet WP:GNG he needs substantial coverage in reliable sources, and nobody's presented any. As to why there are articles on Walton heirs, some of them have done notable things, others haven't and might be deleted/merged. This article could be merged to William Bernard Ziff, Jr. (his father) --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. Still think should be 'KEEP'. While notability is not inheritable, wealth is and when it's inherited, the recipient (especially when worth $4b) is usually notable if he's spending any of his money. He has been written about in reliable sources since at least 2006 as a young billionaire (see http://on.msnbc.com/NlA0dM), he is noted as a comparison for young billionaires on Kenneth C. Griffin, and has created (since 2000) a charitable foundation in his own right.(see http://www.melissadata.com/lookups/np.asp?zip=134083253. To my thinking, this is a KEEP though the article needs to be expanded. Vertium (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite, and there's also additional coverage about this particular Ziff because of his youth and other activities. I can't see any good reason to create a gap here in our generally comprehensive coverage of billionaires. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2012 (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.