Talk:Phil Barker

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Board and table games Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Games portal This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

2007 deletion[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]