Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John Linton Roberson

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 02:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Linton Roberson

I'm of two minds. It's all verifiable, I've pulled an extensive edit on the page, but it still has that smell of vanity. I'm not sure if the published work for eros is notable, the e-book isn't a major publication that set the world alight, he's not currently a huge name in comics, and so I bring it here. Steve block talk 14:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - there's really nothing here, just self-publication and "e-books", neither of which indicate an encyclopedic level of success as an author. CDC (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I've left a message on List of cartoonists talk page (which, for some reason is the target of the Cartoonist talk page redirect, {whatever}), pointing here. comment by User:Wiki alf.
• Keep - Is the Wiki Comics Project about being completist or being a hall of fame? If being self-published disqualified you from being considered a professional cartoonist, many alternative cartoonists would be disqualified. Self-publishing is very common in comics, and Roberson has published others under his imprint too, and has been working in the field for close to a decade. I would also add that the comics references in Wikipedia are, in general, at present biased heavily toward mainstream comics with far less on alternative creators. Is this an oversight or reflective of a prejudice against non-mainstream cartoonists? Just because he hasn't worked for Marvel or DC doesn't mean he isn't a cartoonist, and incidentally, why has the stub reference been removed? I vote against deletion. gilesgoat talk 16:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. It's not the self publishing that excludes Roberson, see my statement above for my reasoning. I removed the stub template because the article is not a stub, it's a fairly decent article given the subject. I don't think he'd need to have worked for Marvel or DC, but I don't think the body of work he has produced at present deems him worthy of an encyclopedic entry. Feel free to prove me wrong. I tend to see Wikipedia as falling in between completist and hall of fame. And to be honest, if all you need to be to be a professional cartoonist is a self-published one, then I need to change my job description, having also self published comics. I think the description professional cartoonist means one earns one living at it. And look, if one does the old google test we get 56 hits. That's not huge is it? Steve block talk 21:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This guy seems notable enough for me, has longevity, and his self-publication is definitely not of the vanity kind. Requiring cartoonists earn a living from cartooning would exclude a very large number of people wiki covers. Sdedeo 21:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Most cartoonists not working for the majors don't make a living at it. It's the work that matters. Roberson did a 252-page graphic novel, still works in the field, and is a very active presence in the comics community. And if you had done a google search under his full name, which he always goes by(because there's a lot of Robersons, after all), you'd have found a lot more hits Also, there are a lot of alternative cartoonists who turn up fewer hits because they have no web presence. The e-book in contention, incidentally, got a lot of notice within the community and included about 30 very notable people, as it was a benefit for EPICURUS and JOURNEY creator Bill Loebs. It wasn't a small thing. According to the info on it, it was done as an e-book only to minimize expense so LOebs would get most of the money.- gilesgoat talk 21:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment, You know, I half suspect you're John himself. I googled the way I did to reduce chaff, your search is a lot less specific. I do however appreciate everything you say, but, I still want the community to decide, is this entry and person of encyclopedic quality. As to Roberson being active in the comics community, how so do you mean? Steve block talk 22:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Nope, I'm not, but I am very familiar with his work. I question too the misapprehension that self-publishing is vanity in comics. It's very, very common in that field. As far as how active he is, I see him commenting on issues in comics all the time in various places and he's much more prolific than you might think. I dunno. But excluding him because he self-published PLASTIC is silly. It's not the scale, it's the work, and he's produced a lot of work and still does. And why does work on Eros count against him? I've seen it, it's good. Dirty but good. gilesgoat talk 22:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment, I have made no link between vanity and self publishing. I am suggesting the article is a vanity article. I am excluding him for having a lack of impact on the comics field. Steve block talk 22:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment How is it a vanity article if he didn't write it himself? All the info in it--and the original entry it was whittled down from--was drawn from stuff already on the web that I'd seen before, for my own part. gilesgoat talk 22:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment The article was created by an anon, so it isn't provable that he didn't write it himself. Second, all the information in the article isn't verifiable on the web. I could not find his birth date listed anywhere on the web, and would suggest this information is the sort of thing only the person in question is likely to know. I removed most pieces of information I was unable to source, please compare this edit to the current one. No sources for most of the information were given, so are unverifiable. Steve block talk 23:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment All I know is that I've seen that information before, as well as the picture, which I've seen at least a year back on his writers.net profile. I've made as much of a case as I can. As far as I can tell the main reason for removing him seems to be that he's not as well-known as some. To me that's not a legitimate reason, but that's my opinion. I may seem partisan but I go way back as a fan of his--I was a subscriber to PLASTIC.

Incidentally, just thought I should add: there seems to be a misunderstanding about PLASTIC now that its back issues are at Ebookopolis. It used to be a print publication when "Vitriol" was being serialized. The last issue he printed, no. 8, I received in 2001. So in fact he's only done one thing, WORKING FOR THE MAN(which he organized almost by himself) that was an e-book from the get-go. Also, his work was printed in Danny Hellman's LEGAL ACTION COMICS, and one of the pieces he contributed to in WFTM was written by Terry Gilliam collaborator(writer of the JABBERWOCKY film and former HELP editor) Charles Alverson. So this guy has worked with some notable people, and the fact he was able to get so many famous pros on what I recall as short notice for WFTM indicates influence and presence in the comics community, seems to me.gilesgoat talk 23:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• keep - does not seem to fit deletion criteria. Trollderella 09:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep rewritten page. I looked at this page a couple of months ago and it was full of Roberson vanity, clearly written by the subject himself and bursting at the seams with grandiose and unverifiable qualitative statements (Roberson inspired by Stanley Kubrick and other such rubbish). Kudos to Steve block for his rewrite--this is a now an encyclopedic article. Quale 16:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep John Roberson is a Fantagraphics-published cartoonist.
• Keep I have no objection to the current version of this article. Alf 15:05, 2 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.