Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoff Barrall


 * 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. The lack of independent coverage (press releases don't count), tips this to delete.  MBisanz  talk 01:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Geoff Barrall

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notwithstanding the comment that "CEO is notable", there is no inherent notability of CEOs of privately held companies (or even listed ones, for that matter). The only citation other than press releases (in fact, and per policy, neither demonstrative of notability nor reliable) and and article penned by the subject is from a non-notable source. Bongo matic  02:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with nominator. The Reuters citation, which was included probably to look like news coverage, is not coverage-- it's just a press release. J L G 4 1 0 4  03:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not quite sure how notable it is, but the article naming him one of the top ten most influential people in the networking storage industry certainly conveys a fair amount of notability.  I turn up a reasonable amount on Lexis-Nexis, including several articles he wrote for Computer Technology Review which seems like a reasonably good publication.  I find a number of mentions in the Wall Street Journal, and sure a lot of what's out there is just press releases, but there are 19 Reuters articles that include his name.  Many are just quotes, or passing references, but that's still something.  There's also an article from Forbes, certainly a reliable source, that deals with him in some depth.  In short, there is enough coverage in reliable sources, most significantly the Forbes and Top 10 articles. Cool3 (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Literally every single one of the Reuters references is a press release (see nomination on their relevance). The Forbes article is about a company (which may be notable), and provides no significant detail on the individual. I disagree with the inference you draw from the props from byteandswitch.com. Bongo  matic  03:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the Forbes article does begin " In early 2001, Geoff Barrall, a British Ph.D. scientist with a background in designing networking switches, arrived in the United States with a data storage system that he claimed could blow the doors off every storage box on the planet. " So while it's not just about him, it definitely does present him as notable. After further examination, it does appear that everything on Reuters is Market Wire (aka press releases), but those, per policy, can be source of information though not notability.  Finally, I don't know what else to infer from the Byteandswith.com article than that he is significant and notable. Cool3 (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Cool3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by RP459 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- No reliable sources showing notability (meaning nothing that's independent -- press releases don't count -- and nontrivial coverage of *him* versus other topics). DreamGuy (talk) 14:58, 2 March 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.