Talk:Phil Barker

2007 deletion

This page was proposed for deletion 2 years ago - the result delete. After two years it is reasonable to revisit the issue but I suggest the creator of this page check out the procedure for changing a decision like this. Anyone who knows anything about wargaming will agree that Phil Barker is notable and his influence for good or ill ~on wargaming has been huge. None the less, it is the wider wiki community that has to be convincedDejvid (talk)

The original nomination was Stub article has no references and no claim of notability. Does not satisfy WP:N or WP:BIO. However recreation of the page was not barred at that time (otherwise the page creator would not have been able to create this page), in which case recreating the article with better references and demonstrated notability would be the way to go. To quote from WP:DRV If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted. This article appears to demonstrate notability (it's certainly got references, which the original article appears not to have been blessed with) - if you believe it is still not suitable, you could relist it at AfD yourself....--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Even tho I'm not a fan of Phil Barker I would have voted against deletion. My thought is that maybe proposing a AfD and getting a keep result would be better than people doing a lot of work on it and then someone proposing an AfD later on. However, tho I've been around Wikipedia for some time I still find deletions confusing so I have no confidence that I know what is the best course.Dejvid (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Dejvid, I'm pretty neutral on PB - I have used his rules (though not currently) but don't know him. I do, however, feel his contribution to the modern hobby is considerable and (wiki hat on) he is notable enough to have an entry. I think that not as a praise thing but, without acknowledging Phil's role, anyone examining the origins and growth of the hobby would not get the full picture. I think that's especially true in the Ancients period but a lot more could be said than in the article for other periods too.Monstrelet (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I believ that his influence has taken ancient wargames along several blind alleys but that makes him more notable not less. And I agree with everything you have just saidDejvid (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Dejvid, the deletion debate for the previous article suggests that it failed notability and rules for biography of living people. One of the commentators also said it was spam, suggesting that it focused on the rule sets. I can't guarantee that some drive-by won't nominate this article on the grounds of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but the guidelines do not require it to be automatically listed on recreation.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll trust your judgment on that. I'll see what I can do to find a few references to help insure that it survives if a drive-by does list it.Dejvid (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitely notable in the wargaming sphere, although more influence (even if not to everyone's taste) in a UK-context. Checking the history, there were a few adds to the article since the above - thanks for those - so will just add a note here for now in case there's another deletion splurge. Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)