Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brent Britton


 * 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   delete. ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 04:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Brent Britton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Breaches Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons (NPOV/V/NOR). TigerRag86 (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 5.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 02:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - The reasons the nominator listed for deletion can be fixed without deleting the article. --  &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  02:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I was unable to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - he, "was influential in establishing the legal framework that ushered in the late 20th century Internet boom in ... Silicon Valley". Oh thank you, father of the internet! Yes, massive (and completely unsourced) claims like that can be fixed with editing but a lack of notability can't. If he really is what the article claims he is (some sort of Alan Shore/Steve Jobs super-hybrid) then coverage should be... abundant. The biggest claims are the least sourced and those sources that have been provided aren't very strong. I couldn't find much beyond blogs, e-zines and local papers and I certainly couldn't find anything to support some of the... more creative... claims in the article. I don't think his role as Adjunct Professor at the University of South Florida is enough to substantiate a pass against WP:PROF either. Stalwart 111  06:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I was the original author of this and a number of other articles about people and things from the early days of the web, a topic that was and remains somewhat underrepresented on Wikipedia. I haven't watched the article too closely and clearly there is some stuff here that reads more like a book dust jacket than an encyclopedia. Per the mocking comment above, indeed, Britton was one of the first "Internet lawyers" at a time when there were very few, and ran with the crowd they used to call the Digerati. This is sourced, I believe, to an article in the Gulf Coast Business Review, which is now a dead link. There are indeed plenty of reliable third party sources to establish verifiability — he's a real person and the cited facts appear to be true. Another link not in the article, an introductory paragraph to a statement from him in a book on marketing, which the author also discusses in a blog. This looks to be a case of significant coverage in minor publications. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "influential in establishing the legal framework that ushered in the late 20th century Internet boom"
 * "only Media Lab alumnus to become a lawyer."
 * "Britton is recognized as an expert in laws relating to social media and online communities"
 * All unsourced claims but they are arguably among the biggest claims to notability in the article. There's a suggestion that he is a, "prominent voice for startups" but if you look at the corresponding source it says the author of the piece considers him a, "prominent voice in the area startup community" (Tampa Bay) which the article also laments is a very small group of people. This is a local solicitor who likes to talk about himself and so has shoe-horned himself into a couple of local articles and maybe a book (which is effectively coverage of his own coverage of himself anyway and looks to be self-published). I really don't think there is enough significant coverage to warrant keeping this but if it is kept, it needs to be cut right back to the 2-3 lines that can be sourced to independent reliable sources. Stalwart 111  20:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No. 2 is a factual claim that would have to be verified. #3 is an honorific, and generally not encyclopedic (though if it is strictly true and related to notability it might stand). #1 is a summary statement for the lede, and if the article stands then the lede should summarize whatever sourced content remains in the article. I think we're in agreement on all that, but perhaps differ on which side of notability this falls on. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's exactly right and most of my commentary relates to stuff that could be fixed if the article were kept. I suppose my point is that it might have started as a technical stub relating to someone who played a role in the early days of the internet but it has since been bastardized into promo-spam by the subject's dedication to "brand Britton". There's nothing really wrong with that either and I don't think it's bad-faith but it does present us with problems when it comes to AFD. There's not much to verify the general technical claims, nothing to verify the bigger claims and bits here and there to verify his quasi-notability as someone known within his local community (which any go-getting, tech-savvy lawyer might have). That generally wouldn't be enough to establish notability. If we can verify any of the Silicon Valley stuff (not just that he was there but someone else saying he made a contribution) then per WP:ANYBIO #2 I'd be all for keeping it. Coverage then becomes inconsequential. Stalwart 111  23:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, he may have had a role in the early days of the internet, but it looks like a minor one. Probably a nice guy and good at his job, but I don't agree that the sources provided are substantial enough to push Britton over the WP:BIO notability criteria.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC).
 * 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.