Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IsAnybodyDown? (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IsAnybodyDown?

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

This new vote is a process to remove the previous article IsAnybodyDown? and/or merge/redirect its contents to the new, correct article Craig Brittain (entrepreneur) who has achieved notability via coverage from several notable sources: Business Insider, Adland, Forbes and Fusion. All of the old contents can be retained as this is simply a merge for notability which no longer meets the confines of a single wiki entry about a defunct website, but rather is rightfully extended to include a notable person. The subject has received sustained news coverage for several years after the closure of his initially notable website, including multiple notable events, thus meeting WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. The reliability/notability of the sources also meets the WP:NOTPROMOTION standard and thus is qualified to be a standalone article about a living person.

Original AfD vote:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IsAnybodyDown? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AManInWikipedia (talk • contribs) 22:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject retains the notability established in the previous AFD. Significant coverage by NPR's On The Media, Ars Technica, Coverage here is not just of the one founder, but of the business with multiple partners. Supposed other coverage of Brittain is Adland, which does not mention his name in the half-paragraph related to a tweet Dryvyng put out, Fusion, which discusses Brittain and Dryvyng in the context of IsAnybodyDown and its effect on any future plans; and Business Insider, which both opens and closes with discussion of IsAnybodyDown. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the first nomination deletion, there has been a settlement with the FTC to take down the website, the details of which are not usual for the FTC. Given the FTC settlement and the response that the website took, it meets notability requirements.DivaNtrainin (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- well referenced and pertinent. The information on the founder's later ventures can go though. I went ahead and removed it as off-topic content for the article: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per NatGertler and K.e.coffman above. Shearonink (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - troll afd raised to promote keeping page on its cofounder. Blythwood (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple citations and news stories. Craig Brittain (entrepreneur) is notable for his involvement with this site, not for anything else. Note that nominator appears to be a single-purpose account that has only edited around this subject. Shritwod (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I somehow misread the noms block length so have reverted the closure. My apologies. –Davey2010^Talk 00:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.