Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Bardenheuer


 * 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. Kevin (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Craig Bardenheuer

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No notability asserted for this fellow, and none that i can find. All the sources appear to be either press releases from companies that this fellow has been hired by or works with or passant mentions of the sort "'we're delighted by this new business opportunity,' XYZ Corp. VP Craig Bardeneheuer said." No reliable sources cover this person in any depth so appears to fail BIO and the GNG. Bali ultimate (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * He be in the noose. Google news search results are a plenty. --59.182.122.38 (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * cmt news ghits are of course worthless, but the link you provide shows 24 of them. That hurts the case for retention, if anything. Some of those are from the Hartford Courant in the 60s, when a little boy of the same name won a prize in a local halloween contest and a bubble gum prize in a separate local contest sponsored by a milk company. There's also a wedding notice when a guy of this name was an usher. The rest seem to be this fellow -- just quoting him, as described in the nom.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing WP:BIO. Most of the coverage seems trivial, with news stories and press releases quoting the subject in articles whose primary is Juniper, its projects, products or collaborations. The only sources containing biographical information about the subject are executive profiles produced by Juniper. Will reconsider if independent biographical sources are found. Abecedare (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - article does not assert notability. Sources only establish a presumption of notability per WP:N.  As WP:MILL eloquently explains, a well sourced topic may still be non-notable and the defining criteria appears to be whether the sources merely discuss the topic, or whether they assert its notability.  - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Bali is right. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Being a senior official in a company by itself does not confer the notability and there is no other assertion for the notability either. Also, sources are rather weak. Salih  ( talk ) 16:02, 21 October 2009 (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.