Talk:Paul Barnett (video game designer)

(Comment)
In my opinion, this article either does not verifiably satisfy the Notability criteria for one of the following guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia: Academics, Biographies, Organizations and companies, Fiction, Music, Films, Web content, or it may violate the Conflict of interest guideline, or perhaps it is a Copyright violation.

Untitled
Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources to verify any claims of notability. Even though the lack of third-party sources in an article is not grounds for deletion in itself, an article with absolutely no sources (or only external links to unreliable ones, or self-published sources) suggests to some editors that multiple independent reliable sources may not, in fact, exist.

Although I am considering tagging this article for deletion according to the Deletion policy, I am nonetheless willing to assist User:, and other recent contributors to this article, to make some constructive improvements to it … I do not have time to examine this article in depth at the moment, and it may improve over time, in which case this warning was premature.

Please respond on this Discussion page, instead of on my Talk page, in order to avoid fragmenting the conversation.

To better understand why I have used this template, please read Flag templates for deletion warnings … I apologize if some of the expressed possible concerns may not be appropriate in this case. Category:Flagged articles


 * As article has survived 2 AFDs, I have removed it from the flagged article indexing by adding a colon to the category template. – S. Rich (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

2016
Still not notable. Time surely invalidates the previous arguments in that his notability was temporary

2013
Re-raising the issue of notability. I doubt this guy is any more notable than many other game designers and his notability was temporary with the Warhammer game. He's disappeared since then. He should have been deleted in the past - saved by fan boys.

Old
Under what grounds are we questioning this individual's notability? According to the guidelines listed & thoroughly discussed here, I can find no reason why Mr. Barnett is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Perhaps I'm missing the point, but it appears as though Mr. Barnett's employer EA Mythic is making a new game, which is highly notable on its own. He is involved in the development process of a notable project, yet that is not enough to warrant notability for himself? Suitmonster (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, am for the removal of the (lack of) notability tag.--Tornvmax (talk) 04:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

All the sources in this article are actually interviews with Barnett. This does not represent a netural POV. The wild facts read like it's written by a PR person. The picture illustrates that Barnett has had some influence on this page 79.65.160.45 (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There are many great designers out there, Barnett is no more special than any of those why should he be included. Ability to self promote is not an acceptable reason. I can't see how he meets *any* of the guidelines for notability. 79.65.160.45 (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
 * No
 * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
 * No
 * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * No
 * The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.
 * An unreleased yet popular computer game hardly qualifies. The success of his other games is very limited.
 * Well we have edited it now, there really isnt any point in removing the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.233.112 (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sites such as Moby Games provide lists of game developers. I'd say that falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. He might have a very long and successful career ahead of him, but until then, he should be removed.

http://www.mobygames.com/search/quick?q=paul+barnett&x=0&y=0 reveals no results. For a notable video game designer this is unusual. 79.65.160.45 (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with deletion for a notable MMO designer look at the likes of Raph Koster or Richard Bartle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.191.104 (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * He has been mentioned as one of the top influential people in MMOGs by Beckett Massive Online Gamer http://www.beckett.com/estore/news/?eskin=subMOG&a=10166&s=118, so I do believe he has the merit to deserve an article of his own here.--Faitudum (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Reopened the notability debate: I agree that notability is limited and temporary which does not seem to meet the guidelines Notability 92.238.60.236 (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Also looks like he himself has had a hand in the article, given the picture! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.60.236 (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as he's been invited by his peers to a number of professional conferences in the role as a presenter/speaker (such as PAX East recently), I think this qualifies as sufficient "peer recognition" for notability. Schwinghammer (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Social representations
I propose this section should be deleted. There is nothing of any substance there. 79.65.137.222 (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Multiple issues
This article requires considerable cleanup:
 * Notability is limited. It should not be temporary.
 * References aren't good.
 * They need to be actually verifying facts, 1-3 just game pages
 * Most aren't up to required standard.
 * Some are broken — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.120.163 (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * reads a bit like a CV
 * Perhaps, an independently sourced picture would help. It's too badly written to be a CV.
 * should consider breaking up into sections
 * Artículo bueno.svg Done. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Contains random trivia; e.g. blue oyster cult.
 * Lists of miscellaneous information
 * List of interviews and lists of speaking is a bit too close to this TheEvery (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It's my feeling that the article contains so much trivia as a means to justify notability. Should a stub be kept if it cannot be elaborated?


 * Artículo bueno.svg Done. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Also see BLP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.120.163 (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)