Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barden Corporation


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Barden Corporation

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable manufacturer. They sure have an interesting history, but it all comes from the company's own sources. Fails WP:CORP. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep GNews and GBooks return an awful lot of hits, spanning multiple decades, from publications with names like "The New York Times." I agree that current sourcing in the article is woefully inadequate but I disagree that the company fails WP:CORP. It's been the subject of substantial coverage in clearly reliable sources. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  05:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep (and merge Barden Precision Bearings here). The company appears notable, as will be any company of this size and duration (let alone one that looks to have an interesting first cause). Although it's not yet demonstrated within the article to our local standards, that's just a matter of research and copyediting. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep (and merge Barden Precision Bearings here). Meets definition of notability; added additional sources to meet WP:CORP69.37.209.249 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC).


 * Keep (and merge Barden Precision Bearings here) valid sources searchable from various sights and articles meeting notability; they made the Norden bombsight work which is quite significant in the history of strategic bombing and the drive toward precision strikesCRTinyDuffy (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC).
 * Comment I believe 69.37.209.249 and CRTinyDuffy are the same editor. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you might be right, but I don't think it matters all that much. For that matter, perhaps too?
 * CRTinyDuffy is a new editor to Wikipedia, logged-out edits happen to all of us and we should WP:AGF. There's no evidence (AFAICS) of contentious editing or deliberate socking, so I don't see a problem. There are two claims to support keeping the article by these two editors, but fortunately they're not at variance with the consensus from other editors and it's WP:NOTAVOTE anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Having an "interesting history", broadly construed, is the very thing that distinguishes corporations worthy of an encyclopedia article above the average tech business promoting itself on Wikipedia.  This business not only has news hits but also Scholar hits and books hits from Google; there seem to be a fair number of in depth secondary sources. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:22, 13 May 2010 (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.