Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Brittain (entrepreneur)


 * 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. A clear consensus to delete, ignoring anything by the blocked user:AManInWikipedia. I don't think I have seen so much vote manipulation. Many thanks to those who saw the vandalism and sorted it out. Ron h jones (Talk) 15:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Craig Brittain (entrepreneur)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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)
 * 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)


 * Delete and salt (was comment) - I'm not taking a view here, since he does seem to have been covered in media a lot, but He doesn't seem to be notable for anything other than IAD and doesn't seem to have been extensively profiled in his own right. Also, calling him an "entrepreneur" is absurd given lack of evidence of (legal) business activity. As a second choice if this is kept, move to a different title, like "Craig Brittain (revenge porn)". Given how childish AMIW has been and is being, 100% chance that this article will be promptly recreated by some troll, so salting is called for. Anyone who wants to recreate this article should start by convincing an administrator. Blythwood (talk) 03:17, 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)
 * AManInWikipedia, why don't you pop over to Conservapedia and create your article there? You don't even need NPOV or reliable citations there. Much more your thing, I would suggest. Shritwod (talk) 20:28, 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)
 * The above two keeps were added by, here. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Both Blythwood and Brozozo had their comments manipulated by AManInWikipedia. This isn't just some newbie making a mistake but a very clear and calculated attempt at subverting the AfD process. Notably, Brozozo's vote was changed from Delete to Keep. This is Brozozo's original comment before it was changed. Shritwod (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * *Delete. It is my opinion that the subject of this article is not notable enough. I believe the page for IAD can adequately contain any discussion of Brittain. Brozozo (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. (1) Brittain isn't even mentioned at all in a cite here that mentions somebody else as a founder. (2) WP:BLP1E clearly is involved in the revenge porn brouhaha, since he worked on it but is not known as a founder. (3) His only other venture is not verifiable. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your point (1) is actually discussing a different, earlier website, of similar name and texture. IsAnyoneUp? is not IsAnybodyDown? --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , yes, this guy ran a ripoff of that website. Blythwood (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So,, Brittain is not even creative? Bearian (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. It is my opinion that the subject of this article is not notable enough. I believe the page for IAD can adequately contain any discussion of Brittain. Brozozo (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and block the obvious Chance Trahan sockpuppet. Why is anyone wasting their time on this? Please delete and salt Dryvyng too so we don't have to deal with that one next. World&#39;s Lamest Critic (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- seconding the suggestion to delete & salt Dryvyng. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 1 November 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)
 * And yet somehow you have failed to raise any of this "clear evidence" with administrators, Arbcom or indeed anyone else. Please present your clear evidence somewhere. I'm sure I will find it fascinating. Shritwod (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not a "vote" on anything. This is a discussion.
 * As Dryvyng is not an article but currently just as redirect to this page (a redirect, it should be noted, that you directed here), then a result here is likely to have an impact on that page in any case, and this is the appropriate place to be discussing that. It is far from unrelated.
 * You are, of course, welcome to trot out any evidence you have of paid COI editing on the appropriate noticeboards. I would suggest, however, that you find some evidence beyond that people are doing edits you don't like. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's consensus policy makes everything a vote. So that 'not a vote' thing is a Red Herring - most neutral people know that Wikipedia has been dominated by biased and agenda-based editing on the platform. If you do away with the consensus policy, the editing quality on/of Wikipedia would get much better (and AfDs like this wouldn't happen).
 * The best policy would be if only Wikipedia admins/ArbCom could edit/delete lines upon request/review. That would stop a lot of the edit wars and a lot of blanking by agenda-based users.
 * You just said that Dryvyng was unrelated, yet somehow it is related to your other article. That is a logical contradiction and a clear example of your agenda.
 * In this case, you're not doing 'edits', you're squatting a page that you've been editing for 4+ years and there needs to be a policy against squatting. The point of Wikipedia is that pages are edited by multiple editors, not the same 3 people who just happen to show up when a NPOV article that meets Wiki guidelines appears, to try and sack/salt NPOV.
 * It's entirely obvious what your agenda is when magically your article qualifies but an almost identical article with only the headline properly changed to meet Wikipedia's NPOV standards doesn't qualify, and a clear logical contradiction which can only be tied to an outside agenda or motivation. Since I doubt you have a personal grudge against the subject of the article, the logical conclusion is that you're being paid to negatively edit/shape the article and its discussion (4+ years is a long time to edit an article for free!). AManInWikipedia (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding points 1, 2, and 4, if you wish to change Wikipedia policy, the midst of an AfD discussion is not the best place to do so effectively. The pages for the various policies and guidelines have talk pages, which might be a better place to start. As to point 3, I said Dryvyng was "far from unrelated"; that's actually the opposite of saying it was unrelated. As to point 4, yes, the point of Wikipedia largely is that the articles are edited by those who happen to show up; that's the volunteer editing system. And on point 5. if I'm getting paid for every article that I've done fewer than 20 edits on over fewer than 4 years, then I'm far richer than I realize. There are now a number of editors here that are disagreeing with you as to how the Wikipedia standards apply. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I find it amusing to see AManInWikipedia attempting to lecture people on how Wikipedia should be run, given that they manipulated the comments in this AfD discussion to change "Delete" votes to "Keep". Forgive me if I ignore that lecture. If you think that there is wrongdoing afoot then perhaps you should contact a lawyer? I wonder if David Blade III is available? Shritwod (talk) 08:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete As best I can tell the sources are weak, one for example is a blog that happens to be hosted on a web news source, but as a blog does not meet our reliable source requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:FOC is such a useful and valuable policy to keep in mind when commenting on Wikipedia talk pages. Shearonink (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome &#124; Democratics Talk 10:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment it does seem to me that a clear consensus was reached. I do not see the point of it being relisted. Shritwod (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Agree with Shritwood. Consensus according to Wikipedia policy & guidelines seems clear to delete this article, I don't quite see the need for relisting? Shearonink (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2016 (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.