Talk:Keith Gill

This needs to be Afd’d

Not news. Bohbye (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree VineFynn (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Any of you can feel free to take this article to AfD. WP:BOLD. Natg 19 (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The subject has coverage in reliable sources. Benjamin (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeepFuckingValue, citing WP:BLP1E. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Not all of us have the time or energy to participate in wiki's bureaucracy friend, especially on mobile VineFynn (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 2 February 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to use his real name. I am moving to the original proposal of Keith Gill (investor) since those arguing for "Keith Gill" straight up did not gain traction in this discussion, but another discussion could be held to determine the primary topic of "Keith Gill". (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

---

DeepFuckingValue → Keith Gill (investor) – The current title is simply the reddit username and isnt a nickname or monicker. Mcguy15 (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - There is already a Keith Gill and the man became well-known under the pseudonym "DeepFuckingValue". There is a gut reaction to move the page owing to the offensive language chosen but this is not different from other persons known by their handles like PewDiePie and Jacksepticeye. UserTwoSix (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm removing my vote. It seems more and more likely the media and others will move away from this name. UserTwoSix (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

That being the case, UserTwoSix, am I correct in inferring that you are supportive of the proposed move? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm moving towards a support vote. I think there is almost always a gut reaction against changing something. So after being introduced to the name Keith Gill, it takes a little bit for it to sink in as Notable, after reading about "DeepFuckingValue" on GameStop short squeeze. UserTwoSix (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment I do not agree with the (investor) part. It should be (Reddit user) or (financial analyst). UserTwoSix (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I would be opposed to Reddit user for the disambiguator as I don't think the particular internet forum the subject posted on is the most important component of his notoriety. But I quite like financial analyst, which seems to be more suitable than investor. What do other supporters of the move make of the proposal? (Pinging Mcguy15, JBchrch, and Shivertimbers433.) 207.161.86.162 (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Financial analyst sounds good to me! The previous "investor" was a bit one sided. Mcguy15 (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I also think financial analyst is better. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

In the event of a binary choice between DeepFuckingValue and Keith Gill (investor), am I correct in inferring that you would prefer the latter? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Support. With a preference for Keith Gill (financial analyst). There is little to no reason left to support the Reddit username given the widespread coverage of his real identity. UserTwoSix (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment The short description currently reads "Reddit user and financial analyst". I could also go for financial commentator or GameStop squeezer. UserTwoSix (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment The very first page created for the article was Keith Gill (Reddit user) DeepFuckingValue (Reddit user). UserTwoSix (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

It was actually Keith Gill (Reddit user). - Station1 (talk) 07:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I sit corrected. I will back that initiative! UserTwoSix (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per my section explaining the move; there are a good number of reasons why I think it ought to be at this title. jp×g 22:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose He is more well known as DFV. Nobody knows him as keith gill.Newslack (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Support changed my mind. Now that more news articles are referring to his real name, especially when he is asked to testify at congress. The title should change to Keith Gill.Newslack (talk) 05:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Newslack: Do you have any preference as to the disambiguator? Personally, I'm leaning towards Keith Gill (financial analyst) (as proposed by UserTwoSix above). 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I think (financial analyst) is better too. (reddit user) makes the article look not as notable.Newslack (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support. "The name used most often to refer to a person in reliable sources is generally the one that should be used as the article title" (WP:NICKNAME). The NYTimes, Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal and Reuteurs introduce him as "Roaring Kitty". So if anything, this article should be titled Roaring Kitty.--JBchrch (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

On that count, I think this article is a bit of an unusual case, as the current title is somewhat unprintable for many newspapers. Therefore, other factors may need to be taken into account, as unlike the press, Wikipedia is not censored. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a reasonable argument, but I would argue that we need to defer to reliable sources. If no newspaper ever reprints "DeepFuckingValue", this nickname may become obsolete at some point anyway.--JBchrch (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I think I have effectively addressed this concern in my comment below. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support, most RSes like NYT and WSJ refer to him primarily by his real name. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support – JBchrch is right to point out that reliable sources more often introduce the subject as either Roaring Kitty or Keith Gill. Typically we should default to the subject's "real" name unless we can establish that a pseudonym or nickname is most commonly used in reliable sources, which is clearly not the case here. (While not an excellent survey of reliable sources by any means, we can also see that "Keith Gill" Gamestop has more than twice as many Google hits as "DeepFuckingValue" Gamestop.)

The idea that DeepFuckingValue is too profane to be the article title is, of course, without merit; Wikipedia is not censored. However, the argument raised by AllegedlyHuman that we should disregard the common usage by a majority of reliable sources on the basis that these sources are "censored" is unconvincing. Any number of social factors can influence popular usage of a given term. It is not our place to assess the merits of these considerations (even if they include an aversion to obscenity). Our role is to assess what the common usage is in reliable sources.

While the rationale provided by the nominator for this proposed move is weak, reliable sources show that DeepFuckingValue is simply not the subject's common name. Therefore, the article should be titled using the subject's "real" name in this instance. Investor appears to be the appropriate disambiguator here, but if there are objections, I am open to considering other options. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Based on the above conversation, I am leaning slightly towards the use of financial analyst as a disambiguator, but investor would be my second choice. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support, per COMMONNAME. This story is moving from the pseuds of Reddit deep into the real world, with Gill being asked to testify in Congress, and his real name mentioned in the most recent news articles (such as the NYT's [1]) like any other newsworthy person's name, with his pseud given second billing along with "Storming Kitty." There isn't enough pertinence to "DeepFuckingValue" (technically, "u/DeepFuckingValue") anymore to have it be the article title, as tempting as it may be to name the article that. Moncrief (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any preference as to the disambiguator, Moncrief? Personally, I'm leaning towards Keith Gill (financial analyst) (as proposed by UserTwoSix above). 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't have particularly strong feelings, but I prefer the RM suggestion of Keith Gill (investor). He's famous for being an investor. He did not become well known during his career as a financial analyst; evidently he gave his notice on January 21st. Moncrief (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I would second your stance on this, investor fits better and avoids a bias issue of either implying hes a financial mastermind or implying he isn't meriting of any status whatsoever except as just a guy. As is we can anticipate a massive amount of biased edits and commentary due to the polarized nature of the GME Short Squeeze, anything at all that minimizes this in the long run is overall a net positive in my eyes.Jyggalypuff (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support At a minimum it should be his name AKA "DeepFuckingValue" in the introduction which would flow smoother and allow avoidance of the inevitable back and forth for the next year over it. In addition, with credible news reporting that he may be asked to testify in front of congress, which would be testimony recorded under his name, as opposed to "DeepFuckingValue", he will become more noteworthy as an individual rather than by his alias. Jyggalypuff (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Move to Keith Gill per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:TWODABS. The only other Keith Gill was averaging 5 views per day last year. This Keith Gill got over 12,000 views yesterday. This will also solve the problem of what qualifier to use. We just need to add a hatnote pointing to the other Keith Gill. (As second choice, support as proposed.) Station1 (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Wait that's a really good point. Mcguy15 (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Given the nature of the subject, it is hard to assess its long-term significance. Accordingly, we are unable to assume that this disparity in page views will continue over the long term (e.g., in five or ten years from now). 207.161.86.162 (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure we can. Certainly the pageviews will go down significantly, but even if they drop by 99%, this will still be the overwhelming primary topic between the 2 Keith Gills for several years. Station1 (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, surely the rationales behind our naming practices should have relevance beyond merely "several years". 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

No, we're WP:NOTPAPER. In the unlikely event the situation changes in a year or two, we can very easily move the article again. Station1 (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Mainstream media uses his legal name, not his screen name. EdJF (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment. Interesting to note that the article itself refers to Gill as "Gill" 16 times. "Deep Fucking Value"? Twice. Makes you wonder why we're even discussing the need for a change.EdJF (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. There are millions, probably tens of millions, of people who know this person as DeepFuckingValue (and to a lesser extent Roaring Kitty), versus a few recent articles that dox him as Gill. Gill will always be known for being DFV, not the other way around. Deez Nuts is a similar example of a semi-obscene pseudonym used as the article title. When somebody is notable only for activities under the pseudonym, the pseudo should take precedence. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that Gill was doxxed, as he voluntarily spoke to WSJ. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

He was first doxxed by Reuters, whose messages and calls he refused to answer (as they state in their article). Then, WSJ and others called him and he did answer some of them after the information was already out. He has continued to post as DFV on r/wallstreetbets and tweeted from the Roaring Kitty account, after being exposed. Whether it was doxing or not makes no difference to the questions currently on the Talk page, but it seems pretty clear that he wanted to stay anonymous if he could. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

That's reading between the lines and is entirely speculative. Regardless, he's made no attempt to 1) protect his anonymity or 2) criticize the media or claim he was doxxed following reporting on him. I agree that it's not really that important here, but your initial statement said unambiguously that he was doxxed, which I do not believe to be true. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support Although I still do not think we need the article. If we do have it, we should use his actual name, not his one time screen name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. I just ran a comparative search on ProQuest’s U.S. Newsstream database. Roaring Kitty got 33 hits, Keith Gill + GameStop got 33 hits, and DeepFuckingValue got only 6 hits. So among the public at large, as shown by reliable sources, the pseudonym DeepFuckingValue is not particularly well-known. It may be that this is due to taboo avoidance, but so what? The reliable sources are showing that the name does not predominate. John M Baker (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

If those are republications of the initial articles from Reuters, NY Times, and Bloomberg after Gill was identified, that is additional circulation of the same articles, not independent decisions by sources to use Gill rather than DFV as the name. The circulation of the name DeepFuckingValue is higher than that, e.g., 8.5 million registered users of WallStreetBets and millions more unregistered readers, plus use on Twitter, Facebook and other social media. Most of those people knew of DeepFuckingValue long before Gill was identified, and he is still overwhelmingly described online by the pseudonyms; there has not been a shift to calling him "Gill". 73.89.25.252 (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME – the real name is the most common form used by reliable sources to refer to the subject. Mz7 (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support based on recent news and upcoming hearing under his real name. I cannot imagine TV stations calling him by his handle.Expertwikiguy (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support in mainstream sources, his actual name is more relevant. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Elliot321, with which disambiguator? Investor or financial analyst? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

investor. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 19:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. AlexKitfox (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support: Per WP:COMMONNAME. He's mentioned by his real name per recent news. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article title

I have moved the article back to the title DeepFuckingValue, from Keith Gill (investor). My reasoning for doing so is thus:

• Pseudonymous posters often have articles under their pseudonyms, especially when the actions for which they're notable are entirely done under those pseudonyms; see dril, Horse_ebooks, da share z0ne, Topiary, weev, etc. Other people, like Christopher Poole, have pursued a number of other ventures under their IRL names, and have IRL-name articles.
• DFV is notable primarily for his Reddit posts, and to a lesser extent his YouTube posts. While he has talked to newspapers who ran articles with his real name in them, he is not notable merely for the fact that he had conversations with reporters (or else every newspaper reporter would have an article about them).
  • Specifically, Keith Gill did not make the Reddit posts. If you look at the posts (which are linked to from the article), you can see they were posted by u/DeepFuckingValue. Similarly, Marilyn Monroe is notable for having appeared in many films, whereas Norma Jean Mortenson is not.
• Articles which are primarily about his Reddit posts typically do not mention his name in the headline, seeing as it contains the word "fuck".
• Most articles I see mention him as DeepFuckingValue and not Keith Gill, to wit: the ones in The Ringer, Axios, the Guardian. Even among the articles that mention his real name, The Verge mentions "DeepFuckingValue" first and only introduces his IRL name afterwards.

I realize that there is a strong aversion to using profanity in the name of an article, and an even stronger aversion to doing things that are "unencyclopedic" -- but we are dealing here with an event that is fundamentally encyclopedic. jp×g 22:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is that most reliable sources (see WP:PSEUDONYM) call him "Roaring Kitty", including the NYTimes, Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal and Reuteurs.--JBchrch (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

As I noted in the section above, I believe the reason for them doing this is exactly to avoid using profanity. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Why is that relevant? Shouldn’t we be using the name used by reliable sources in any case? Is there a non-OR argument for a non-RS name? John M Baker (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty of professionals (look up gamers) and people that use pseudonyms. What's the incentive to follow the conventions of news papers when the hyper majority of people aware of his presence are only aware of him by his pseudonym? This seems like it's leaning towards being pedantic rather than aiming for accuracy. Aeviou (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

origin and meaning of pseudonym DFV

https://old.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/eoaua4/gamestop_2019_holiday_sales_down_275_yoy/fecbdv2/ , Jan 14 2020, r/wallstreetbets :

" I’ve dealt in deep value stocks for years but have never endured bearish sentiment this heavy.

...

Yea there’s deep value, then there’s deep fucking value."

73.89.25.252 (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I was also wondering about this, thanks. This adds context. Benjamin (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Now that there's a page about DFV it might be a good time to create an article on deep value, the investing concept. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Is that something different from Value investing? — BarrelProof (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The meaning has to do with value investing as explained in the article. The comment was not an origin but a reiteration of the internet name into an emphatic phrase. UserTwoSix (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The comment explains what "deep fucking value" means to u/DeepFuckingValue, i.e., deep value but much more so. The value investing version of unicorns. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Better sources are needed as the figures make no sense

Our article says "an investment of around [US]$53,000 into a figure nearing $50,000,000." quoting the Guardian. While it's true it does say that, neither our article nor the Guardian article explain how this was possible. If he bought Gamestop at US$5, he could have maybe turned that into a US$5.3 million investment as the share price may have been $500 at one time so a hundred-fold increase. It was never even close to $5000 though, nor has there been a stock split since 2019. It appears he did have a large amount the most likely explanation is he invested more than the $53,000 initial investment. (Theoretically if buying and selling especially with instruments like call options, he could have not needed to actually put in more money personally relying on profits from being right.) I see some sources e.g. [2] saying he had 50,000 shares, which is a very different thing although I'd note still not explaining a $50 million portfolio. BTW, I think the lead needs to be clearer that it was simply the value of his investment at one time. Nil Einne (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I have added a break down of the position. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

He had a lot of options. jp×g 21:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The figures still make no sense. Sources like The Independent cited here also seem unreliable. Better sources are required, because it was never possible to buy 50,000 GameStop shares for $50,000. In fact, sources say he bought the shares in 2019 at $5 each. Marchino61 (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

His initial ~$53,000 investment was all into call options, he bought the 50,000 shares over time, starting in ~April 2020; with big purchases in July 2020 (9,500 shares) and Jan 2021 (40,000 shares). You can see this easily in his periodic reddit posts It's a bit hard to follow from just these updates, but seemingly he made money as his call options expired and reinvested all the profits back into shares and/or more call options. Hard to verify for certain from just these updates, but it does seem very plausible that his profits are all from that $53,000 initial investment.

His "$50 million" portfolio was $17.3 million in shares, $16.7 million in call options, and $13.8 million in cash (cash all being profits from call options). Rtomp9 (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Since this is becoming old news, I feel the need to say: It peaked at 50 million when Gamestop spiked one specific Friday. It's not, currently, 50 million dollars, but Gamestop is really volatile so who knows. 216.106.94.95 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

References

YOLO

The section "Position on GameStop" begins with the following sentence:

In September 2019, Gill (as DeepFuckingValue) posted a screenshot of a "YOLO" trade on r/wallstreetbets, consisting of a roughly $53,000 long position in GameStop; Gill's Reddit posts and YouTube videos argued (through both fundamental and technical analysis) that the stock was undervalued.

I edited the article to remove the term "YOLO" trade but was reverted by AllegedlyHuman, so I figured I would take the matter to the talk page to more fully explain my rationale. The term may have currency within the small community surrounding r/wallstreetbets, but it is not a term with which the general reader can be expected to be familiar. Without knowing how the term "YOLO" trade is used in that community, I'm not sure that the word YOLO adds anything to the sentence (even if one is familiar is familiar with the more general use of the aphorism).

In their reversion, AllegedlyHuman suggested that the term can be expected to be understood by readers by virtue of the link to the article "YOLO (aphorism)". As that article mainly just explains the general use of the term YOLO, I don't think that that addresses the main problem here. AllegedlyHuman, could you clarify as to what the term "YOLO" trade is intended to communicate in that sentence, in your view? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The page YOLO (aphorism) describes the term in its use on r/wallstreetbets: "During the January 2021 GameStop short squeeze members of Reddit’s WallStreetBets often touted their long-shot wagers against short selling hedgefunds with the expression "YOLO"." However, even the general idea given in the lead should be enough to understand Gill's use of the word: ""YOLO" is an acronym for "you only live once". Along the same lines as the Latin carpe diem ('seize the day'), it is a call to live life to its fullest extent, even embracing behavior which carries inherent risk." In addition to providing support for the cocky, brash nature of Gill's trades, the quote also helps communicate the internet culture Gill was a part of. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The page YOLO (aphorism) describes the term in its use on r/wallstreetbets. I don't know that a one-sentence reference multiple sections into the article means "that the bluelink itself gives readers that info if they need it" (as it was put in the edit summary).

However, even the general idea given in the lead should be enough to understand Gill's use of the word. Readers should not have to read between the lines to infer what is likely meant by a recently coined neologism used exclusively by an obscure subculture. We have a duty to communicate what we mean in a straightforward manner using an encyclopedic register. Using this term in the way that we are here is neither straightforward nor in an appropriate register.

In addition to providing support for the cocky, brash nature of Gill's trades, the quote also helps communicate the internet culture Gill was a part of. I think there is definitely value in that. Is there a way that we could retain the term while providing an explanation for what the r/wallstreetbets community means by it? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

There having been no reply after several months, I will remove the term. As I previously suggested, however, I would be open to re-inserting the term if there is a way of providing an explanation in-line for what the r/wallstreetbets community means by it. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Did you know nomination

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 The C of E (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that DeepFuckingValue's "obscene" username was chosen to reflect his belief in value investing? Verlaine, Julia-Ambra; Banerji, Gunjan (January 30, 2021). "The Man Who Drove GameStop Mania". The Wall Street Journal. New York. p. A1. Retrieved February 1, 2021.
  • ALT1: ... that Keith Gill's "obscene" username, "DeepFuckingValue", was chosen to reflect his belief in value investing?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/115 (barge)

Created by JPxG (talk). Self-nominated at 02:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC).

• I would suggest that this article not be featured on the main page until the AfD and the RM are complete. If the article is moved to "Keith Gill (investor)" or "Keith Gill (financial analyst)" (which appears to be likely), the hook will probably need to be amended accordingly. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• That's already supplementary rule D5. The deletion nomination is here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Pending survival of AfD ... the article is new enough, long enough, and is cited. QPQ done. Passes earwig. --evrik ^(talk) 02:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Just noting that I've just concluded the deletion discussion with the page having been kept. El_C 16:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• --evrik ^(talk) 00:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• We should not use scare quotes around "obscene". The source doesn't. Station1 (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Question about inclusion of some family information

I understand this is a biography and it’s certainly true that he has a deceased sibling as he said it himself, but given the nature of how he came to be known and why that information was shared as well as concerning his own privacy (again, I know he said it himself, but a quick Wikipedia article seems faster and easier to access than sitting through a testimony), it seems invasive and inappropriate to include in the article.

I’m not necessarily saying it should be removed but I’m interested in other thoughts on it being in the article and hearing other reasons that support its inclusion. Nissele (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is. The purpose of a Wikipedia article is to share all known knowledge on a given topic. If he's fine with disclosing it to the government I don't see why he wouldn't be fine with it being shared on a Wikipedia article. If it really bugs you THAT much you could just go ask him yourself. 209.161.136.155 (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't the testimony supposed to be public? I don't see the problem. Benjamin (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This information about his sister dying is poorly worded. It's crass and should use passed away instead of "died".

It's my belief that it has no merit in the context of his person.

The purpose of Wikipedia is *not* to share all known knowledge on a given topic. There's a reason why sources are cited and edits are made. It's a quick rundown on the essence of a topic. Otherwise all Wikipedia articles would be pages and pages long.

Look up celebrity pages. The death of any celebrity, unless the death knowingly and citedly influences the course of that person's being, is never added. Look at "Zelda Williams". Her father is Robin Williams, one of the most famous actors to commit suicide. His suicide isn't included in her biography, let alone his death.

It's cool that people were able to dig up this information on him from somewhere in the dredges of the internet but for personal and practical reasons not all information ought to be posted on a Wikipedia page. Aeviou (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with the information on his sister’s passing being unnecessary. If we have to keep it, I personally think less callous wording like “passed away” should be used in place of “died”. Rdnovotni (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

No, we should not. See MOS:EUPHEMISM. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

You haven't said anything about removing the information to begin with. I'm unable to make edits due to being a new user, so I'm hoping that somebody will agree that inclusion of the information doesn't make any sense to begin with. The death of his sister, and frankly the inclusion of his siblings existence, is not relevant to nature of his fame. Ignore All Rules Aeviou (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It's relevant to building an encyclopedic biography of him, so long as it can be accurately sourced. If his "fame" is only due to one event, an article on him probably shouldn't exist. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:What BLP1E is not, that is only one of the three criteria for BLP1E. He is obviously not a low-profile individual. Benjamin (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The information about his sister dying was not from the "dredges of the internet"; it was from his Congressional testimony. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 20 February 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. One month after the events of GameStop short squeeze, it is clear the investor is the primary topic. DAB page not needed per WP:ONEOTHER. (non-admin closure). Vpab15 (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

---

• Keith Gill (investor) → Keith Gill
• Keith Gill → ?

– Per request of Station1, who said the following: "The reason Keith Gill should be pointed to the investor's article is because it's getting literally thousands of hits from readers virtually all of whom want to read about the investor. The athletic director was averaging only about 5 hits per day before the investor popped up. By sticking a dab page in their way (especially with only 2 possible articles) you're just inconveniencing dozens to hundreds of people per day, however slightly, and for no offsetting benefit." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: Keith Gill titles a dab page with significant content, so it cannot be a target title in a move request unless also proposed to be renamed or speedily deleted per WP:ONEOTHER. I have altered this request to reflect those facts. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Edit Keith Gill (investor) and his role in the GameStop short squeeze has been international news for weeks, covered by WSJ, Reuters, The Guardian, and everyone in between. Keith Gill (athletic director) has an article 4 sentences long, and nothing suggests that his career has been more notable than that. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – note that according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the primary topic is determined with respect to usage or long-term significance. It is difficult to imagine either applying clearly in the long term. At the moment, the investor is getting many more hits than the AD due to recent news, but I do not anticipate the trend continuing. Also note WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; use a hatnote on this article to point to the other per WP:ONEOTHER Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 12:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support I understand the opposing argument about long-term significance, but with the other Keith Gill's pageviews (consistently <50 per day) it will likely be a very long time until the investor's pageviews come down to that level, if ever. There's currently a clear primary topic and if that ceases to be the case in the future, the change can be reverted. Lennart97 (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Usually Wikipedia pages only use brackets to specify extra-relevant information when there are multiple persons with the same name. If that is the case, I think it is too early for him to get his own merit, and we should adhere to community standards respecting neutrality. He is not a special person in that matter, and people who want to know his identity can simply just look him up through multiple news outlet sources, that quote both his real name and pseudonyms. 188.177.200.14 (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support It would be hard to imagine a time when Keith Gill (AD) would become more prevalent than Keith Gill (Investor). The AD page is a 5 sentence incomplete article, the Investor page is already exponentially more robust, and is still a developing story. Rtomp9 (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support This should be the case until the athletic director is at least as notable as the investor. JAH2k (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support This is not a case of WP:RECENTISM, as the investor/financial analyst is now the the primary topic. If the primary topic changes we can move the articles around, but we should not just assume the athletic director will become more notable than the investor/financial analyst. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • If you don't mind me asking, how is this not recentism? There is little evidence that the investor will be significantly more notable than the AD in the long run. His notability comes from a news spike, which is cited as an example of recentism. I'd suggest looking at this graph, which shows massive peaks in interest for Keith Gill during the initial GME squeeze and this week's testimony and a massive drop in the intervening time. Given how quickly the falloff occurred, I see no reason why this won't happen again once the news cycle moves on. If interest is sustained, then a move would be justified, but if it isn't, we'll wonder why we made the move. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I, for one, find it quite easy to imagine this article having more lasting significance than the other one. Benjamin (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Many people above are saying that this article is the one which will be more indelibly imprinted on the public's mind, but that is not what established policy indicates, per WP:QUALIFIER. Also any editor considering closing this, please note - these aren't votes, they're !votes. It would be a serious abuse of consensus for it to be moved without the qualifier. 2607:9880:1A38:138:FDE7:9343:BE42:270F (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:QUALIFIER says that if there is a primary topic, then that article's title should go without qualifier. So if there is a consensus that the investor is the primary topic, it is policy, not "abuse", to perform this move. It seems to me that you're pre-emptively labelling the outcome you oppose as the result of either abuse or ignorance (no one who doesn't know the difference between votes and !votes is going to close this discussion). Lennart97 (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support It doesn't make sense to have a Disambiguation page at this point. UserTwoSix (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for now per RunningTiger123 without prejudice against revisiting the issue in a few months. Right now is way too early to tell. Mz7 (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Procedural support. The athletic director does not appear all that notable, given that there are only several sources that confirm his occupation (WP:CITEKILL'd). Moving the investor to the primary name would solve WP:TWODABS. Alternatively, this Gill could also be moved to Roaring Kitty or DeepFuckingValue / u/DeepFuckingValue, the usernames by which he is better known. IceWelder [✉] 22:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment Previous discussions have already decided not to keep the article under those usernames. UserTwoSix (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: I don't think we can confidently establish the investor as indefintely the primary topic (currently for sure, but that's probably recentism, plus considering it isn't all that rare a name and more notable people with it can easily pop up). More significantly, this page isn't being allowed any opportunity to settle at a title, which is much more disruptive than having a qualifier some people dispute is. The page has been having move discussions more or less its entire life, and they cause far more issues to readers than "Keith Gill alone leads to a disambiguation page" -- note that Google, for instance, will still direct readers to the investor rather than the disambig. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:RECENT + WP:CRYSTALBALL. Plus he is an investor. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The GameStop short squeeze took place only very recently, so of course Keith Gill (investor) is the flavour of the month. But it's likely of long-term significance. So wait until the smoke clears, and probably then replace the DAB with hatnotes if it's still just two-way. Andrewa (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closing remarks

I found the supporting arguments more persuasive than the opposing ones. The mention of WP:RECENTISM is less relevant one month after the events. I agree the dust hasn't fully settled yet, but that just means that the investor will feature in even more reliable sources in the future. The athletic director might catch up in the future. In the same vein, as Vaticidalprophet mentioned, "it isn't all that rare a name and more notable people with it can easily pop up". Both are cases of WP:CRYSTALBALL. The fact either scenario might happen in the future is irrelevant to this discussion. Finally, the coverage of GameStop short squeeze and the investor has been global. The athletic director is mentioned mostly in US-based sources. Even if we accept there is no primary topic in the US (a huge if), there is a clear primary topic globally. Vpab15 (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Misleading information about his wealth

The rising stock value allowed him to turn "an investment of around [US]$53,000 into a figure nearing $50,000,000."[3]

Even if it was written by a newspaper, the newspaper didn't do their due dilligence. The wording "turning his investment into a figure nearing $50,000,000" implies that the stock and options were liquidated when I don't see any citable source that shows that he cashed out at $50 mil. He cited himself somewhere (I believe in the congressional hearing) that $48 million was only a paper number. Aeviou (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this wording is misleading. Do you have suggested alternate wording? Rtomp9 (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:DIY applies here. If you feel that this sentence is poorly worded, feel free to "instead of pointing out a problem, why not just click on the "edit" button and do it yourself?" JAH2k (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

See the discussion at the section "#Better sources are needed as the figures make no sense". -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The first of lawsuits against Gill

Case 1:21-cv-10264

A balanced discussion of Gill needs to include the current and coming legal mess beyond Galvin. Nofway (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable secondary source describing this lawsuit beyond the text of the lawsuit itself to prove that its inclusion is due. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it's worth at least a brief mention. Benjamin (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Here are a few Nofway (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Keith Gill hearing 2021.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Why do you keep moving his usernames to a footnote?

What is the reason you are putting his online usernames as a footnote? UserTwoSix (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I suspect this was done to reduce clutter in the first sentence, but having thought about it, I also think that the usernames should be returned to the lead, rather than footnoted, as they're important for identifying the subject. Mz7 (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems like it is being done either for privacy or to "clear his name" from the obscenity of DeepFuckingValue. UserTwoSix (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Date of birth

I've removed the date of birth and birthplace from the infobox. We'll need a high-quality reliable source for that information per WP:BLPPRIVACY, and as it stands, it was unsourced. Mz7 (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

u/ prefix

We currently list Gill's Reddit username as "DeepFuckingValue". However, the convention for Reddit topics has been to include the technical prefix, such as with "r/" for subreddits like r/wallstreetbets (instead of just "wallstreetbets"). If this was upheld, we should use "u/DeepFuckingValue" as the listed username. Thoughts? IceWelder [✉] 22:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this. If he were notable on Twitter instead, I have no doubt the bio would include the "@". AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Benjamin (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

When it is mentioned by reliable sources, his username is simply referred to as DeepFuckingValue: [3][4][5][6][7].--JBchrch (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

or "u/DeepFuckingValue" [8][9][10][11][12][13] Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The other articles on Category:Reddit people don't use the /u/. It is unnecessarily obfuscating. UserTwoSix (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Investment Style and Tools Sections

added two sections in my edit to this article that expand on his methods and tools as described by the subject in his many Youtube videos. They were removed completely, with no edits, on the basis of describing the subject unduly and supposedly from a biased perspective.

• Investment Style Prior to His All-In Investment in Gamestop
• Tools

While I am absolutely sure that edits can improve the content added, and citation of individual youtube videos added, the content seems to me neutral and duly researched and most important of all of great value to investors visiting this page and wanting to learn more about the subject.

In essence JBchrch I ask you and other contributors to the page to include those sections and revise and amend them as needed to improve their quality. Costantino12 (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Costantino12, and thanks for your post. The diff can be found here. As I explained to Costantino12 on his talk page, the section he added was not written from a WP:NEUTRAL point of vue, gave WP:UNDUE weight and was phrased in a promotional manner. It was also based on WP:PRIMARY sources (i.e. Gill's Youtube videos), although this is less of a concern to me since I have no reason to think Costantino12 distorted the content of the videos. I maintain that a detailed explanation of his investment style and his tools is not warranted on this article, since this is not what he became known for and what the reliable sources have reported about him. I would defer to what WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY sources have said about Gill's investment strategy, a summary of which could be added to the article. I can certainly propose something at some point in the next few days (unless someone has done it beforehand). --JBchrch (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and did a little research, but did not find anything about Gill's investment strategy in the good sources. So I made this edit that underlines that Gill believes in value investing.--JBchrch (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi JBchrch, and thanks for the reply! I do believe that it is important to explain his investment style and tools because they give context to his rise to notoriety: after all he is famous now because of his investment decisions, which were amply praised by internet communities and now mainstream media. Not listing those here, leaves the wikipedia article solely focused on the chronology of his rise to fame: that is, a forensic fandom page, which ignores the actual contributions of the subject to investment strategies and methods for small investors. understand the concern on secondary sources, as all my content is taken directly from the subject's own description of his style and tools.Costantino12 (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It should be common sense that the investment style of an investor is relevant to an article about that investor. Benjamin (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

...if reported on by reliable secondary sources. Lennart97 (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

His videos are reliable enough for claims about his investment style. Benjamin (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but if that's not being discussed in reliable independent sources, then it's undue to include. (If it is being discussed in reliable independent sources, we should use those instead, so the point is moot.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

We're not talking about comparing competing viewpoints here. Why would including this make the article worse? Benjamin (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Having a section which would, by nature, be solely or majorly sourced only to the article subject talking about himself would violate NPOV and would give his own appraisal of himself undue weight. The issue isn't about whether or not the information is true; it's about whether or not it's notable enough to merit inclusion. If no reliable independent sources are discussing it, I wouldn't say it is. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps just a brief explanation? We can use a little editorial discretion here. Do you really think readers will come to this article and think, "Hmm, this isn't the sort of information I was looking for!"? Benjamin (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Fired?

'Roaring Kitty' no longer has financial broker license: filing Does this mean he has been fired? Should it be included in the article? --Error (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes he has been terminated. He is no longer a broker and now has two disclosures on his FINRA disclosures below. Time to update "He is a licensed securities broker,[12][13] and has been registered with FINRA since July 2012 with no disclosed regulatory infractions.[14]

Initiated By Christian Iovin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Allegations Allegation that Mr. Gill's conduct caused inflated share prices in violation of certain federal securities laws and rules thereunder.

Initiated By Massachusetts Securities Division Description of Investigation The Massachusetts Securities Division of the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is conducting an inquiry into certain unreported outside activity conducted by Mr. Gill. The inquiry is ongoing and the Firm is not aware of the Massachusetts Securities Division reaching any conclusion as of the date of this filing. Nofway (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It says in the Reuters story that A FINRA spokeswoman said a person’s registration is terminated when he or she is no longer employed by a registered firm. This implies that it happened automatically when he quit his job; the text should be updated, but as far as I can tell there isn't anything here to suggest that he was kicked out of being a broker. jp×g 22:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

" as far as I can tell there isn't anything here to suggest that he was kicked out of being a broker." When you are a FINRA broker, you have to be employed by a FINRA firm, e.g. he is no longer a broker nor a General Securities Principal. If he was still a broker or an RIA, it would be on his CRD. Prediction: he will soon lose his CFA for ethics violations. Nofway (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Right – if it just happens automatically if you quit your job, it should be clarified that this is the case in the article, to avoid being prejudicial. To simply say that someone has lost an accreditation without further explanation usually implies punitive sanctions. jp×g 08:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Looked like nothing was added so I did. UserTwoSix (talk) 07:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2021

Add to other names "The oracle of Brockton" new nickname as bestowed upon r/wallstreetbets 70.189.249.252 (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment You need a reference. UserTwoSix (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 01:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Reddit post - His final update

He posted his 'Final Update' here -- https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/msblc3/gme_yolo_update_apr_16_2021_final_update/

It shows that he exercised his Calls on April 12th, as well as also buying an extra 50,000 shares. It is believed his current pseudonyms will be retired now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.136.49.15 (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Keith Gill hearing 2021.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)