Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Brittain (entrepreneur)

Craig Brittain (entrepreneur)

Craig Brittain (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The subject is primarily notably for his alleged association with IsAnybodyDown? (which he has from time-to-time denied). This "revenge porn" website is notable for a number of reasons, the subject of *this* article is notable primarily for his association with IsAnyBodyDown and not for any other reason. On the flipside, there is a mention of his new venture Dryvying which certainly doesn't fit notability guidelines by itself. I think that either Craig Brittain or IsAnyBodyDown is notable, probably not both, and given apparent claims that Mr Brittain is not connected with the revenge port site, then I would suggest deleting THIS article. Shritwod (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete: there is nothing that this individual is notable for that is not better covered by IsAnybodyDown? (which has already survived its own AFD attempt, and text copied from which formed the basis of this article.) Dryvyng is not a functioning rideshare company at this point; its website is a redirect to an investor pitch deck, and what coverage there has been has basically been of the "look, the folks who did IsAnybodyDown are trying another business, but their rep is following them" sort. We can redirect this to the company article if need be. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• Strong, speedy keep and merge: Plenty of sources indicate that the subject has achieved personal notability, and that the old article IsAnybodyDown? should be merged with the new article Craig Brittain (entrepreneur). As the subject has received coverage from Business Insider, Fusion (TV channel) and Adland as has his company Dryvyng, the body of sources mentioning his name (plus the fact that the subject is being mentioned in the present) indicates that he meets the criteria for notability. The old article IsAnybodyDown? should be redirected to the new article Craig Brittain (entrepreneur) and all of its contents should be retained. AManInWikipedia (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• As a point of fact, no, the Adland source (which has a half-paragraph on a tweet from Dryvyng) does not mention his name. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• It establishes Dryvyng, the company, as a separate event without mention of any other events. Involvement in multiple, sustained and ongoing events means the subject meets WP:GNG, WP:NOTPROMOTION, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. AManInWikipedia (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. An aside: Does "Dryvyng" actually exist as a legal entity (apart from its Twitter account)? Seems to me that there's a fair amount of WP:CRYSTALBALL going on re:"Dryvyng", it was announced in 2015 (a year ago) but hasn't launched. Yet.

In my opinion Brittain has little notability apart from IsAnybodyDown? Merge the pertinent content into the IAD article. If Brittain becomes notable enough for a standalone article, his article could then be resurrected. And "mentions" are not an indication of notability - in-depth content in multiple reliable sources is. Shearonink (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete (I initially proposed a redirect -- after delete -- to IsAnybodyDown?, but apparently the subject has denied the connection at times, so it does not make sense to redirect). There's no need for two articles covering the same material. The site is more notable than the founder. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• The "site vs. founder" is a false argument being used to slander the subject of the article and squat by potentially paid editors and ArbCom needs to investigate the potential of paid editing/conflict of interest regardless of the results of this vote. At this point anyone who is voting "delete" is suspect. Don't take it personally, ArbCom just has work to do to investigate paid editing/CoI/article-squatting.AManInWikipedia (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Not taken personally at all - any editor having concerns about this alleged slander and asserted "squat" and paid editing/conflict of interest should take their concerns to whatever WP noticeboard they deem appropriate. Shearonink (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, by all means :-) . K.e.coffman (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, please, trot out the evidence! --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact that the majority of edits to the article are made by the same 5 editors is a huge red flag. ArbCom needs to investigate, personally, and all editors involved should be required to present their personal details, including their login information for the email addresses associated with their accounts, so that Wikipedia can look through all of their emails to see if a conflict is occurring. After all, the current news cycle has shown us that the best way to expose collusion and conflict of interest is by revealing all of the emails of the parties involved. AManInWikipedia (talk) 13:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Note: There is currently a WP:CANVASS attempt for keeping this article going on on Twitter. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Note: There is currently a WP:CANVASS attempt for deleting it going on right here. AManInWikipedia (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am unaware of any on-wiki or off-wiki contacts regarding "deleting it going on right here". I have not been contacted about this article by any other editor asking for me to edit a certain way or whatnot - I edit as I wish and I comment as I wish. Shearonink (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

No paid editor would openly say they're being paid to edit in a biased way, so your statement is pointless. AManInWikipedia (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you show any evidence of said canvassing? --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

You should not be allowed to squat an article for multiple years. There should be a fixed limit to the number of edits a single user can make to a single article, that would solve many of the agenda-based left-wing problems Wikipedia has with Hillary Clinton voters, to include Jimmy Wales who is a Clinton Foundation donor, ruining the platform with their left-wing agendas. AManInWikipedia (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - He has been covered in media a lot. Clear evidence of notability. Blythwood (talk) 03:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is well-sourced and the person in question is notable. Brozozo (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment This is not a vote on any article but the one in question. Unrelated requests to salt other articles should be started elsewhere. Clear evidence of paid editing being employed in this article now - obvious conflict of interest. AManInWikipedia (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)