Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Barker
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stub article has no references and no claim of notability. Does not satisfy WP:N or WP:BIO Inkpaduta 00:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources, no context. Ganfon 00:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BIO also the article Wargames Research Group is referenceless as the single link to subject web presence is a dead 404 link. Jeepday 03:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete fails WP:BIO. (How did this one survive for so long?) JPG-GR 04:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Failing WP:N is occasionally it's own reward it would seem. Jeepday 04:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per above. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 05:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No context, unsourced, sub-stub, and does not even try to establish notability. (How did it survive so long? I agree, JPG-GR) — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 05:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep--- Barker is significant within wargaming. Maybe it was a quick stub at the time but the article needs to be brought up to speed not deleted. Given that Wikipedia manages to find space for an article on every Pokémon character, I don't see why this needs to be deleted. At least, you could discuss this with some people with some knowledge of the subject. m.e. 10:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC) （article author）[reply]
- I've added material to the article to establish notability. As I said, the article needs work — it is a stub — but it should be kept m.e. 11:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think, if more information or sources are found, this could be a veritable article/stub. I believe we should give them some time to find information, but if none is provided, delete. -Adun 13:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without references DUBJAY04 16:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article does fail WP:BIO and is not relevant, what makes it worse is the fact its got no refs.TellyaddictEditor review! 16:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 18:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Per WP:SPAM. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 05:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.