Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DBMM De Bellis Magistrorum Militum


 * 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. There is some evidence of off-wiki canvassing, particularly on the Yahoo group mentioned below, but it's unclear whether this substantially affected participation here. Nevertheless, the article is 11 months old and still has no WP:V or WP:RS, despite being brought to AfD and this issue specifically mentioned. Pigman ☿ 06:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

DBMM De Bellis Magistrorum Militum

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No evidence of meeting WP:N, no Reliable sources, prod removed by SPA, Delete Secret account 02:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. No asserted notability. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 03:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, all that Google shows is the home page for the rules themselves, as well as various directory entries and the like. Nothing that would establish that this is a notable or important ruleset.  Lankiveil (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Keep The rulesets produced by Barker and the WRG usually have a large following. I expect that there will be coverage of this new edition in magazines like Miniature Wargaming.  Colonel Warden (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But til then, no sources exists Secret account 23:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It may well have been written up already - I don't usually read such magazines myself. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, unless someone can produce such a citation, the fact remains that there appear to be no third-party, neutral sources on the topic. The article can go away then, until someone writes about it, and then perhaps an article will be appropriate.  Mr Maxim (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Its the youngest of the dbx rules sets from phil Barker, the man that has dominated ruleswriting for ancient medieval miniature wargaming worldwide for over 25 years, the site will quite probably evolve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.196.131 (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Encyclopaedic merit is not like an Erdos number...simply being associated with some other remarkable topic does not make a topic itself remarkable. No-one is complaining here about the amateurish quality of the website, so that it may 'evolve' is irrelevant.  What is being discussed here is whether these rules are sufficiently important to merit an encyclopaedia article in their own right, and not, say, a mention in the article on one of the more well-known DBx systems.  At the moment, it seems that they are in their infancy, and it is not the place of Wikipedia to proselytise for them, nor to enshrine them in an encyclopaedia when it is not known to what extent they will really 'take off'.  Mr Maxim (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * their popularity is not in question...or should not be. They have considerable followings worldwide already - certainly not as much as their antecendants, but substantial enough to have had competitions run at various wargaming conventions, and a substantial discussion group.  The article does not "proselytise" in any manner I can recognise - it seems to be a reasonably factual and brief account of their provenance and differences from previous rules they have been developed from.--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep If all you know about the DBMM rules, their notability, and Phil Barker is what you get by Googling them then you probably aren't qualified to pipe up about whether/why they should be deleted. Also, why is notability a criteria? If something is notable then the majority of people are probably already familiar with it and won't need to look it up in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noworld (talk • contribs) 21:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That 'argument' is fallacious. Winston Churchill is surely notable, yet most people would probably want to consult an encyclopaedia article about him if they haven't the stamina to wade through Martin Gilbert's tedious hagiography.  I agree that Google is not an absolute guarantor of notability, but it often does give a fair indication of a subject's relative importance.  You also seem to suggest that only those with access to 'privileged' information (such as through being adherents of various iterations of DBx rules) are 'qualified' to 'pipe up' on the topic...that is equally fallacious, and if a topic requires 'insider information' to establish its notability, then it cannot be encyclopaedic; nor can a reasonably neutral and well-referenced article be written about it, placing it outside Wikipedia's editorial guidelines. Mr Maxim (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Wargaming may be a minority hobby, but it still has considerable numbers practising it worldwide. The author of these rules has been a major player in the hobby since 1970 or before, and his previous set of rules ([DBM]) arguably the most published and most played set of wargames rules to date....and if they aren't then the next likely contender is [DBA] - written by hte same person.  The rules author is not the author of this page and so far his comment on it is limited to it being essentially correct and why would anyone want to delete it (see http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/57237).  If you're going to use google as a criteria I suggest "phil barker DBMM" wil provide you with many more links.  --Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC) — Aloysius the Gaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The singular of 'criteria' is 'criterion'; interesting that User:Noworld doesn't know that either, though it is a common barbarism. I find it disturbing that this discussion has been linked to by an external mailing list...Mr Maxim (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep It's normal that most stuff about these rules is from the author - they are a new set of rules! The rules have been reviewed in the wargames press quite extensively, notably in the Society of Ancients Journal, Slingshot and also online. A good example here http://www.box.net/shared/n18bvwh4o4 Pyruse (talk) 10:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC) — Pyruse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Yes, but the 'Society of Ancients' and its journal 'Slingshot' are hardly what could be called independent, unbiased, non-partisan sources when it comes to the productions of Phil Barker, are they? And the online review you link to was written last night and placed on a free file hosting site.  By someone who is obviously a fan of Barker's work.  Such things are two a penny on the Internet (nay, cheaper), and don't really prove anything at all.  Anyone wanting Wikipedia to shill for their product (and I am not suggesting this is going on here, merely pointing out a hypothetical possibility) could get their claqueurs to write 2 dozen 'reviews' about it, post them on various blogs, file storage sites, and so forth, and then go to Wikipedia to point to the reviews as 'evidence' of the product's importance.  That's why Wikipedia has a policy on what is a reliable source, and what isn't.  Mr Maxim (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing on the DBMM page was written by the author, and the SOA and Slingshot are, in fact, completely independant of Phil Barker and he often comes for criticism from them. The current editor of "Slingshot" is a proponent of a competing rule system.  I put the review there as soon as it was announced - AFAIK the author of the review is not even aware there is a DBMM page on Wiki, and has spent at least het last couple of years playing a competing product.  there are in fact few reviews of DBMM on the web.--Aloysius the Gaul (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If 'there are in fact few reviews of DBMM on the web' (and in print as well, since no-one can produce a citation either), then it cannot be as important or influential as is claimed, and nor could an article be produced which relies only on third-party, verifiable and reliable sources. Mr Maxim (talk) 08:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Fair enough, the chap who wrote these rules may be considered by some wargamers to be the wasp's nipples as far as that thing goes, but the DBM community is a subset of the wargaming community as a whole which does seem to have a tendency to claim disproportionate prominence for itself. That, of course, isn't a reason to delete, but it is background. The real reason why this should be deleted is that it is not referenced, and likely not able to be referenced from third party sources, at least until the ruleset attains (if it attains) the ubiquity afforded to its predecessor, which has an article.  In other words, 'notable by association' is not really an argument, and as things stand, the ruleset isn't encyclopaedic when considered on its own terms, though a sub-section in the DBM article may not be inappropriate.  If it takes off,  then it may warrant its own article, sourced from third party publications, but until then, one may be forgiven for thinking that Wikipedia is being used by this ruleset's fans as either an altar or a pulpit. Mr Maxim (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * a subsection of DBM page would not be apprpriate - DBMM is as different from DBM as DBR is, and although it is a development of DBM it is most definitely not "DBM 4.0" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloysius the Gaul (talk • contribs) 22:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, fair point, then I guess it shouldn't be mentioned at all, at this point in time. Mr Maxim (talk) 08:08, 18 January 2008 (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.