Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Lynch (comics)


 * 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. The consensus (ignoring the socks) appears to be that this subject does not meet notability guidelines. --MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Bob Lynch (comics)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reason BenCaesar (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This article was created by Bob Lynch, the subject of article, himself. That goes against wikipedia policies. Bob Lynch is not an important person either.
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 15.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 12:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete; fails GNG —Мандичка YO 😜 12:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails GNG, no reputable sources, and the article was written by its subject with no substantial edits from anyone else. Fails WP:COI.  Non notable. Zombiesturm (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note BenCaesar is a WP:Single-purpose account editor who appears to have registered to attempt to have this article deleted. A brief search on Google shows that Lynch is indeed a comic book author who had a following in the 1980s/90s. It would be inconceivable that there would not be references that would satisfy WP:GNG. However, given the time at which he was publishing, sources will inevitably be pre-internet. WP:AB is a guidline rather than policy. I suggest this article is Kept and improved on.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  17:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Catfish -- I do agree that the nom is an SPA. It also has the earmarks of a seasoned editor. If someone wanted to conduct a SPI, I would support that. Epeefleche (talk) 02:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * NB -- Nom has now been blocked indef. Epeefleche (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: While looking through the old diffs for material needing revision deletion, I found this potential source. Some of his material was self-published. I am not sure we will be able to find enough source material to establish notability. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not meet notability criteria. Epeefleche (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete.  Does not meet notability criteria.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiPediaMediaEdits (talk • contribs) 15:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This acct is an SPA, that has only !voted here ... after nom was blocked as a sock (and threatened to create more puppets). Epeefleche (talk) 1:41 pm, Today (UTC−4)
 * This acct has been indef blocked for sockpuppetry. Epeefleche (talk) 05:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails GNG Olivesonss (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This acct is an SPA, that has only !voted here ... after nom was blocked as a sock (and threatened to create more puppets). Epeefleche (talk) 1:41 pm, Today (UTC−4)
 * This acct has been indef blocked for block evasion. Epeefleche (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet notability criteria The Dark Mage1980 (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This acct is an SPA, that has only !voted here ... after nom was blocked as a sock (and threatened to create more puppets). Epeefleche (talk) 1:41 pm, Today (UTC−4)
 * This acct has been indef blocked for block evasion. Epeefleche (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2015 (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.