Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Abernathy


 * 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   no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ben Abernathy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Marginal claims to notability aside of that he is an editor with barely any real coverage of him as an individual. per WP:BLP. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and. Unscintillating (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)]
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * He seems to do a lot of interviews. I'm not sure why anyone would care who edited something.  Is that like a movie director?  What does he actually do?  Searching his name and the word "comic" showed ample results mentioning him.  If they mention the name of the writer, artists, and the editor, when reviewing a new series, does that indicate its something notable?   D r e a m Focus  22:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the sole cause for objection is a weak article (oh, and one argument of "I haven't heard of him personally even though I know absolutely nothing about publishing". He's edited a large number of notable series.  And, yes, just because you don't know what an editor does, does not render that person unimportant to the publishing world.  220.237.19.26 (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete does not appear to have passed notability standards. Reads like a resume or self-promotion.  If it is neither of those and is kept, it should be re-written.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Also removed the nominator's vote inside the nomination. (Changed Speedy close, speedy keep to comment based on substantive comment above)Crtew (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  20:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  22:00, 29 June 2013 (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.