Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Michael Linsner

Add links
Page semi-protected
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. – Juliancolton | Talk 18:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Michael Linsner

Joseph Michael Linsner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article has recently been blocked for WP:NLT so I looked at the article and its history. Most of what you see here was not created by the subject, but equally it has no reliable independent sources. The only cited source for most of the article's life has been the subject's own website. There are plenty of articles that offer insight into his career that are verifiable and third-party the mainstream media and press. No doubt he's associated with some notable works, but that doesn't make a comic book artist automatically notable, that comes from WP:GNG, and this is a fail on that score. His depictions of anatomically improbable female pulchritude seem popular with fanbois, but I can't find any substantive sources to add. Guy (Help!) 10:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As written, with next to no sources (and I cannot find any), fails WP:CREATIVE. Obviously you have not looked very carefully for substantial work. Just being an artist, drawing some comics (or writing a few books) is not enough to be in an encyclopedia. I find it amazing that someone's career is not worthy especially one being a game changer. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that some of the edits in the past are by an IP with similar edits as the named account that has disclosed to be the subject. Note also that the biography is currently offline on their website (404 in my case) and that the website overall is a placeholder for an announcement dated 2013, promising things to 'come soon'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the reason for the consideration of deletion primarily due to the lack of a current website? The subject has a long (25+ year) career in the comics industry having done work for all the major publishers in the field. It seems odd this entry is in danger of deletion. This is not a case of vanity publishing with no ready audience.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Acax72 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC) — Acax72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

--- Yes, a search at newsArama alone yields 53 results of Linsner's comics output, also a few at The Comics Journal. An ebay keyword search of his name under Comics yields close to 2500 listings of published items including comics, trading cards, books, etc. This is clearly a professional with an actual audience out there. Acax72 (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage has to be from a professional journalist who is writing in a work known for editorial control and fact-checking. That means that eBay searches aren't useful. Newsarama is listed on the WikiProject Comics list of vetted sources, so anything they say would likely count to establishing notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: I do not feel that this page is properly submitted for deletion. I added an external link to a vetted source The Comics Journal article from 12/2013 titled These Past Weeks In Comics - Tuesdays In Retrospect Acax72 (talk) 06:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I feel that your very first edit was to this debate, and the subject, who has shown more interest in the article than anyone else, was recently blocked for legal threats. Odd, that. Guy (Help!) 09:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP: OK. Having now been cited with a WP:COI from User Talk:JzG for editing MY own page to add links to vetted sources to try and improve it -- I should let everyone know I strongly contest this deletion of my page and I only edited the article to include the following links to vetted sources:

User Talk:Joseph Michael Linsner (Copied here from talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Le sigh. He just added another WP:LINKFARM. He keeps doing that. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Guy. No, I added that. Not Joe. And it seems that it is an impossible feat to edit or add the links to prove vetted sources. Why is that I wonder? I do not think that this page, with it's history of being on Wikipedia since about 2005(?) should suddenly be in danger of removal. I will point out that you removed my first edits which added the following links to vetted sources:

  • CBR 9-20-2016 article HARLEY QUINN #4 (preview) [4]
  • CBR 10-19-2015 article DAWN/VAMPIRELLA #5 (preview) [5]
  • CBR 6-22-2015 article DAWN/VAMPIRELLA #4 (preview) [6]
  • CBR 2-16-2015 article DAWN/VAMPIRELLA #3 (preview) [7]
  • CBR 11-17-2014 article DAWN/VAMPIRELLA #2 (preview) [8]
  • CBR article 9-8-2014 article DAWN/VAMPIRELLA #1 (preview) [9]
  • Search on CBR yields several articles on subject Joseph Michael Linsner [10]
  • Search on Marvel Comics Creators for LINSNER [11]
  • Listed in the Marvel database fandom powered by wikia here [12]
  • Comic book database - Chronological listing June 1991 to present [13]
  • 1997 WILL EISNER COMIC INDUSTRY AWARD NOMINEE (for best painter) [14]

User talk:Kristina Deak Linsner —Preceding undated comment added 14:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC) — Kristina Deak Linsner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete due to lack of substantial independent sources. I also could not find any valid sources, and almost all of the sources mentioned in this discussion only describe comics the subject has worked on. These sources are not specifically about the person and do not describe the subject in any detail outside of a name credit or brief mention. The award nominee link might be ok, but that alone is not enough. A valid source needs to describe the subject in significant detail.
As for the article being on Wikipedia for several years, Wikipedia is really big, and many articles on Wikipedia exist that should be deleted. If you encounter one, you are welcome to nominate it for deletion. The length of time an article has been on Wikipedia does not grant it protection from deletion. ZettaComposer (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP: ZettaComposer (talk) Some of the links do describe more than just the credits of the comics worked on, and include reviews of the comics which describe the way in which the subject worked on them. So do you mean an article with an Interview? Such as the Westfield Comics Interview [15] or else a direct interview with LINSNER here such as this Newsarama interview on the CLAWS2 (featuring Wolverine/Black Cat) ? [16] Several articles and interviews can be found in magazines which are not online, but instead printed on physical paper as the internet was not yet as available to all users back then, nor as popular as it is today.
Aa well there is this article on Illustration Age celebrating him as Illustrator of the week. [17]
And I see there has also been a link added to the page for TCJ - The Comics Journal [18] here. User:Kristina Deak Linsner (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC) — Kristina Deak Linsner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Noting that this named account has a COI similar to the subject itself. See http://multiverse-magazine.com/tag/kristina-deak-linsner/ --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser Note The Kristina Deak Linsner and Joseph Michael Linsner accounts are  Technically indistinguishable.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final thoughts on this matter: Unfortunately, as "fans" are logging in to simply read his article, they see the link about it being "nominated for deletion" at the top of the page--and the prompts to comment on the discussion page. Hence, the entires I imagine here to this discussion thread resulting in "Strong keep."

I sat down with Joe and I asked him "Do you really even NEED a Wikipedia page?" and he stated "No, I don't essentially." As it was never authored by him in the first place and hardly portrays what we would like to about him and his career. He merely edited it to include links to more recent works and update his photo. (the previous one was from 2007) Which are the edits he made recently and what started this whole mess in the first place.

Part of the issue with finding and listing independent sources, is that many of these articles on Joe were written in the 90's on printed matter and have no online history. Comic book authors and artists mainly write, draw, pencil, and ink a lot. (Joe even colors his own work 80-85% of the time) They spend so much time behind the drafting table that they don't really have lives which can be reported on via any other source than links to their visual or written work. Which in and of itself, does not leave much time for articles to be written about whether or not they "had a great golf game" or "enjoy long walks in the park" or "what their influences are", etc. so ultimately, we will just accept the decision whatever it is and move on. User:Kristina Deak Linsner (talk) Kristina Deak Linsner (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page is not protected, so taking out the edit-request.
@Kristina Deak Linsner and Joseph Michael Linsner: I see you said this earlier, and are repeating this here: "Part of the issue with finding and listing independent sources, is that many of these articles on Joe were written in the 90's on printed matter and have no online history". There is no requirement on Wikipedia that an article that is/can be used as a reference is available online. If you could provide us with definite pointers to those articles (generally: name of periodical, date/issue/etc., pagenumbers), then those could be used to assess notability (even if that means that interested people would need to go get the originals). It does however seem somewhat strange that there is nothing more recent that is available online. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP I would also like to add a vote to KEEP this entry up. I'm a fan who happened to be checking some info on comics artists I enjoy and was very puzzled by a suggestion to delete Linsner's page. The subject has been working in the industry (for all of the major publishers in the field ) since the early 1990's. He has done work for DC Comics on Harley Quinn and work for Marvel on Wolverine, 2 brief but very high-profile examples among dozens upon dozens of other assignments for major industry clients. I can not see any logical reason for a deletion here. Acax72 (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC) — Acax72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • It is interesting to see that fans and editors clearly close to the subject/being the subject themselves do not come up with better sources than the linkfarm that is posted above, claiming even a wikia entry to be a reliable, independent source. Being included in a database isn't cutting the deal either. It must become much better than that, hence delete. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is certainly to keep this entry. Linsner has a 25+-year career as a notable writer and artist in comic books, working both independently and for major publishers. He is arguably a major figure in independent publishing. —Jim McLauchlin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CD99:2170:C62C:3FF:FE36:6370 (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC) — 2602:304:CD99:2170:C62C:3FF:FE36:6370 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thank You JIm McLaughlin [19] Please read Jim's bio. He is a journalist for those that do not know that. As was suggested "We need a professional journalist to stand up and say, "Hey, this guy is important. Pay attention to him." by NinjaRobotPirate (talk) I appreciate the helpful suggestion.

Joe's website and his bio are currently under construction which is why you see the 404 error on his bio and the old placeholder upon viewing it. Crime??

And as to the accounts being  Technically indistinguishable. If what you are getting at is we have the same IP address? Yes, we live in the same house and use the same IP address and computer. Is that suddenly not allowed on Wikipedia? So many rules to slog through when you are a newbie. I already know better than to ask any Editors or Admins for help -- (see Beetstra and JzG). As I see how hostile they can be by how my husband was treated. This is now bordering on bullying. The conversation which I feel ignited the entire nomination for deletion of his page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Beetstra

And a WI:COI for me too? I can assure you that I have only worked with Joe the last 6 years - but if that means I am in violation, so be it. It seems NO ONE can successfully edit this page to include links, or or to navigate through to find Independent sources and add them without being thwarted with some kind of citation from either JzG or a comment of accusation from Beetsra. I wonder why this is? As I said I am a newbie to this and Wikipedia takes time to learn. User:Kristina Deak Linsner (talk)

@Kristina Deak Linsner: No, that the website is under construction is not a crime. It is at the moment however the only reference that is there (and a primary reference as such), which means that the only evidence we have that something is true is because the subject says so. That is not the best argument, is it? And 'currently', the state of the homepage suggests that it is under construction for 3 years now (it is a placeholder for a 2013 announcement). But all of that is not the biggest issue, the issue is that there are no independent references (and note that an interview with a subject is not really independent - the interviewer asks questions, and the subject is answering, that is still not independent about the subject). That you can buy the comics on e-bay is also not enough. We are not finding evidence for existence, we trying to find what other people, totally independent of the subject, find notable.
Regarding conflict of interest - WP:COI starts with 'Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself', family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships' (my bolding). You sharing the same name, the publishing together (as per the link I provided), makes you closely involved with the subject of the page (you now are saying that you are living in the same place). That in itself is not a problem (as long as it is honestly declared) when it is not influencing the neutrality of the article, and the editors are (more) strictly adhering to the policies and guidelines of this site. And you do have an advantage, which I hope you will use. Being so close to the subject (or being the subject yourself), should enable you to provide us with properly independent references. And as I say in my !vote, such sources do not even come from you (they are all trivial, showing that the books are sold on ebay, and that people have interviewed him, and that he worked with distinguised companies - I can argue the same, that does not give me the right on a Wikipedia article), suggesting that there is indeed not much that has been independently said about the subject. Can you provide such references? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was holding off on my decision while I looked for more sources, but I'm just not finding independent reliable sources to show notability. I'm leaning to "Delete" but I admit that this is not my area of expertise. so it's possible I'm not looking in the right places. I'll be happy to change this to a "Keep" if someone can find good sources, but the fan sites, blogs, and comic previews that we've been shown so far don't make the grade to show the notability of the artist. He's been around long enough that I think there's a good chance this can be saved. We need solid refs about the artist, not about the comic strips he draws. Meters (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT - knowledgeable editors are currently digging out some references (which are mostly off-line). I'd suggest adding a bit of time to this discussion to see what is coming out of that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but when the "references" include Wikia sites, there's a definite problem. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The secondary sources just aren't there. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think a misconception exists among some users that a deletion result means the article will never be allowed on Wikipedia. This is not always the case, and definitely not the case with this article (it does not contain copyright infringements and it is not an attack page).
If the result of this discussion is to delete the article, an admin can be contacted to Userfy the page, allowing a person to take their time, get this article updated to the strict Wikipedia standards for living person articles, and move it back into main article space (perhaps through articles for creation which I recommend due to the person working to save it having a COI.) Since harder to find print sources might exist, I think userfication works as a better long-term solution to see if these sources can be found.
I say all of this because many people on Wikipedia favor deletion of these sorts of articles because the initial view is that this sort of article exists only for self-promotion, regardless of whether or not that was the intention by the article creator. ZettaComposer (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, my "delete" !vote isn't intended to mean that I think this article should never exist. On the contrary, I would be interested in reading it when it returns full of reliable sources, created by an independent person. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still hoping we can save this article. If it's just a matter of locating appropriate reliable sources that we believe exist then we should hold off on a decision while the article is improved, or userfy the article if it's taking too long. Meters (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP: Joe Linsner has done prominent work for all major US comic publishers, including Marvel, DC, Image and Dark Horse. He was hired to illustrate two miniseries/graphic novels starring Wolverine [20] (Marvel's second-most-popular character after Spider-Man), several issues of Harley Quinn [21] (the breakout character from the 2016 film Suicide Squad) for DC, multiple covers for Conan the Cimmerian for Dark Horse [22] and art for multiple issues of Vampirella for Harris and Dynamite. [23] [24] In 1997 he was nominated for an Eisner award for best painter.[25] He has been profiled in and painted multiple covers for Wizard Magazine. [26] I see from the discussion above that some proponents for deleting this page feel that simply illustrating popular characters may not make Linsner himself noteworthy, and that many of the interviews and articles about him are not available online. Here is a list of selected print articles focused specifically on Linsner himself, with links to online scans of the articles:

  • Wizard #120, September 2001. Article: "Cup of Joe" (profile of Linsner and his work) by Jim McLaughlin. Also, Linsner's character Dawn is on the cover.
  • Capital Comics Internal Correspondance, May 1995 issue. Article: "A Sirius Interview; With Two Sirius Guys" by Tom Fassbender. Linsner's character Dawn also on cover.
  • Sketch Magazine #32, features cover art and a feature-length interview with Linsner. [27]
  • Wizard #92, April 1999. Article "Red Dawn" (Interview with Joe Linsner) by Jim McLaughlin.
  • Wizard #49, July 199. Article "Dawn of a New Era" by Matt Brady. [28]

Full disclosure: I am friends with Joe Linsner and hired him in 1995 to paint two covers for my short-lived comic book 'Coven of Angels.'[29] Kristen Brennan (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I am not sure how much some of the people voting to keep are using the helpful search options at the top of this page, so I'll summarize a couple of things. When looking for reliable secondary sources, usually the best place to look first is the newspapers. There, I am finding nothing for NYT, nothing under the newspaper search, while I find sources under "news", they are not mainstream news - that tells me that he has a great following in the comic book world, but is not meeting WP:GNG requirements for notability because he's not hitting mainstream press at all from what I can tell, but definitely not with significant coverage. There are three items in HighBeam, but they are passing mentions, and not a comprehensive article about him and his career which occurs with people that are notable from an encyclopedic standpoint. In the custom google search, once you look for mainstream news sources + consider the use of independent sources, there is one article from CNN that pops up, again a passing mention.
So, I get why people in the comic arena are very interested in his work - and do see lots on the web - but, they aren't the kind of sources required to prove notability for an encyclopedia article.—CaroleHenson (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Henson suggests that while Linsner "has a great following in the comic book world" and "people in the comic arena are very interested in his work," "usually the best place to look first is the newspapers," so the absence of newspaper stories about him means that "he is not meeting Wikipedia's requirements for notability." However, Wikipedia's official guidelines to the most reliable sources are explicitly *not* limited to newspapers - in fact, newspapers are only #5 on the list while magazines are #4.[30] Wizard_(magazine) in particular had a monthly circulation of 100,000 [31], more than many newspapers.[32] Linsner has been widely profiled by Wizard and many other comic industry magazines, as documented above. Kristen Brennan (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joseph_Michael_Linsner&oldid=1079531039"