Template:Did you know nominations/Ian and Richard Livingstone


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 18:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Ian Livingstone

 * ... that one of the publicity-shy billionaire Livingstone brothers is married to a journalist for the celebrity gossip magazine OK!?
 * Reviewed: John Shannon Munn

Created by Edwardx (talk). Self nominated at 21:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg The hook reads like a celebrity headline. How about a shorter, more neutral one, as follows:
 * ALT1: ... that British billionaires, the Livingstone brothers, are so publicity-shy that they have been called "arguably the lowest-profile billionaire siblings in London"? Otherwise, it is GTG, assuming all British billionaires are notable (through I am not sure about that). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 21:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hooks should be "hooky". And it is meant to be self-referential. And your alternative is longer, not shorter. Personally, I find it rather dull, and there can't be many billionaire siblings in London. How about removing the redundancy? Edwardx (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ALT2 ... that the Livingstone brothers have been called "arguably the lowest-profile billionaire siblings in London"?


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed, including the various hooks (which have been renumbered for clarity, and edited slightly to meet DYK standards). BlueMoonset (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg This article is quite problematic, I'm afraid. I've browsed the sources and am concerned about the following issues:
 * The article is biographical and so "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources."
 * Presenting the two brothers together is not our normal practise and may cause trouble. For example, the first hook suggested is about the wife of one of the brothers.  Suppose the other brother does not wish to be associated with his sister-in-law?
 * The primary source is the Forbes entry in their list of billionaires. There's a big photograph there but that's a picture of a different Ian Livingstone.  I am acquainted with that other Livingstone who has complained to me about the quality of his own article on Wikipedia.  We should not be linking to an incorrect source which depicts him as a billionaire as he's not quite that rich, I suppose, and there's some real-world hazard because such figures attract thieves, kidnappers, &c.  I am going to remove this source from the article now because it is not high-quality.
 * The other sources in the article and elsewhere emphasize the low-profile behaviour of the subjects and use words such as "opaque" and "secret" to describe their finances. Putting a valuation on their wealth is therefore difficult.  Problems include the exact ownership structure - how is the wealth split between them; are there other shareholders; is there a family trust; &c?  Their property business is highly leveraged and so there are large debts to go with their large assets.  The Standard says, for example, "The vast sprawling group has assets of more than £4 billion but after borrowings are knocked off, net assets are a more modest but still substantial £800 million."  Notice that 800 million is not quite a billion, especially if you have to split it two ways.
 * I'm thinking that the best way forward would be to have two separate stubs about each brother and that their property dealings are best covered in articles such as London & Regional Properties. There doesn't seem to be enough material about each brother, when considered as an individual, to warrant a DYK and so I fear that we won't be able to proceed.
 * Andrew D. (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've started Richard Livingstone (businessman) and Ian Livingstone (property developer). The May 2014 Sunday Times Rich List gives them a joint new worth of £2.6 billion. The content is available in the Estates Gazette. So, they do qualify as billionaires, even if one splits their wealth. Having said that, I do accept your concerns about this as a suitable DYK subject. I will probably focus more on Ian, as the original hook is rather more about him. Edwardx (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Can I ask how you'd like to proceed with this nomination? Fuebaey (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As I've now created separate articles, and the article about Ian has been expanded, I think it best if the hook is just about him. I am of course open to other hook ideas, but how about:


 * ALT3 ... that publicity-shy billionaire Ian Livingstone is married to a journalist for the celebrity gossip magazine OK!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardx (talk • contribs) 12:12, 11 February 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New review request. Fixing nom template and striking first three hooks since article is now about one person. Fuebaey (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm confused: why is there still "Ian and Richard Livingstone" if it's been split off into "Ian Livingstone (property developer)"? This looks like a content fork. 23W 22:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've turned Ian and Richard Livingstone into a redirect to their company. Edwardx (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I'm not sure if it counts as eligible or not (pinging ), but would you consider doing a joint nom with Richard Livingstone (businessman)? The irony in ALT3 is certainly interesting, but something like the following may also work, too:
 * ALT4: ... that Richard and Ian Livingstone were dubbed "arguably the lowest-profile billionaire siblings in London"?
 * 23W 00:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Striking ALT4 (a recycling of ALT1); Richard's article is not eligible because it is derived, like Ian's from the original joint article. Only one of them can qualify as the effective successor; the other would need a huge 5x expansion of the duplicated material that is impractical. Ian can safely go now; Richard's only going to make it as a 5x expansion (unlikely) or an eventual GA. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Alright then. "Ian Livingstone (property developer)" is new, long enough, and I couldn't mass close paraphrasing (using copyvios). ALT3 checks out (I added an immediate citation after the fact). QPQ looks good. 23W 07:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)