Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Linton Roberson (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

John Linton Roberson
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I've nominated this article previously, in 2005, Articles for deletion/John Linton Roberson. I'm re-nominating to seek a fresh consensus on whether this meets notability standards and autobiography standards. Most of the references are to websites self-published by Roberson or to sites such as Amazon which do not seem to verify the claims made. The Sequential Tart source cited does not prove independent as the reviewer won the copy from Roberson in a competition. The Comics Reporter source is likewise not independent as it is a press release. the http://digg.com source is a dead link, the http://blogcritics.org source indicates the author has had contact with Roberson. The only source I can access which has any independence of the subject is the Windy City Times one which appears to my reading to be a very negative review. The other remaining source links to a book, referencing page 182 in a 192 page work. On balance of probabilities I doubt this indicates in depth coverage. Further, I suspect the only real editors of this article to be John Linton Roberson. and slightly overlap in July and August 2006 in terms of contributions, but they both share an edit history almost solely limited to the John Linton Roberson article. Of the arguments raised in the first AFD to keep, I would state that Roberson is not a notable self-publisher of comics, Wikipedia is not about being completist, being published by Fantagraphics is not by itself notable, and the article is no longer in the state determined by two users as encyclopedic, and I doubt that state would today qualify as it does not cite any sources. . Hiding T 11:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC) Hiding T 11:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete due to a lack of sources, per Hiding and the WP:GNG. Consensus can change and Wikipedia's prominance on the web means that it needs to have higher standards than what existed back in 2005. Vcessayist (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete despite his high G-test stats, I am not seeing PD content with him as the biographical subject.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Frankly, I'm surprised it's survived this long. Qworty (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2012 (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.