Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Barnett


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Brian Barnett

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTABILITY. This article does not show the sort of third-party coverage we're looking for. The Forbes article is by him, not about him. The Business Insider piece is just a form interview "written" by a group he's a member of. Nat Gertler (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt - Same article that has been deleted 3 times previously. Subject is still no more notable than before. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  16:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently, the first two times articles of this title were deleted, they were for different individuals with a similar name. However, yes, it was deleted at AFD once. Additionally, an article for the same individual (using a stage name) failed at Articles For Creation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete He's good at getting himself in things, from the look of it - but there's not much in the way of independent reliable sources. The Forbes thing is one of those youth spot things, and it's by him, not about him.. No indication of how well any of these ventures actually do. I sometimes think that every man and his dog (or do I mean bitch?) has a clothing line out. I've always preferred to have the labels on the inside... In time, maybe. Not yet, unless a load of evidence appears. BTW Yes, the first two Byian Barnett articles were different people and should be disregarded. I've a feeling salt might be need with this one, if now now, then next time it appears. Peridon (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep How can these sources be unreliable? He was vetted by Forbes AND Business Insider. The notoriety comes from the fact that this kid is SEVENTEEN! The fact he has accomplished this much before he has even graduated high school seems like enough for me. He is a fixture in his home town and in the industry as a whole. Forbes didn't have to put that article online, they chose to for a reason. Michaellandis (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Business Insider piece is just a copy of this piece from the YEC website. Given how similar pieces are now appearing also at the Yahoo Small Business site, it looks like these are basically press releases. They are not material generated by the sites in question. Per WP:GNG, "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. The Forbes piece is by, not about, the subject; we do not consider being a writer for Forbes as inherently notable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can see no sign of notoriety. Notoriety is a word that is correctly applied to the notability of Al Capone and Jack the Ripper - fame for reasons of being bad. It does not (I hope...) apply to a very respectable looking young businessman who will probably have an article here one day - for the right reasons. This word is, through the efforts of so many rappers and hiphop performers. being misapplied to non-notorious people. The rappers etc seem to all want to claim real notoriety, even if they've only ever had one parking ticket... Peridon (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as fluff piece Secret account 17:34, 3 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.