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. Merely being published is not enough. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aron Steinke[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Self-published author. One source found in a town newspaper, but certainly not enough to meet WP:N. tedder (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems borderline to me, but not quite enough coverage in third party published source material to meet the guidelines of WP:BIO. Steven Walling 17:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking coverage, self-published VASterling (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.133.6 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC) — 75.83.133.6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.57.83 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC) — 76.115.57.83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEP 68.101.216.38 (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC) — 68.101.216.38 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEP Qender (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC) — Qender (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Is an up and coming author with two published books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.74.81 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC) — 71.214.74.81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, obviously. I seem to have confused matters by using verb publish to have referred to getting a book published with someone. Last year Tugboat Press [1] see also: Ignatz_Awards and Sparkplug Comic Books[2] published his first graphic novel, Neptune ISBN 9780979746529. This year, a children's book, The Super Crazy Cat Dance, was published by Blue Apple Books, as is now sourced and referenced on Aron's article. Publishing one's work independently and then signing on with increasingly larger publishing houses is a standard practice for cartoonists, comix artists and other purveyors of sequential art. I am making an effort to fill in some seriously large blank places here on this encyclopaedia, but from my previous experience I'm not even slightly surprised that someone wants to verify what goes up here... or indeed, sit over my virtual shoulder and question my every assertion. Brodo (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep66.75.17.147 (talk) 07:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC) I agree with a previous commenter- an up and coming author. — 66.75.17.147 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete For notability it is necessary to do more than publish books--it is necessary to publish important books. There is no indication whatsoever that any of the work is important, Almost no library holdings, only one very local review. "up-and-coming", which is basically the justification here, is a synonym for not yet notable. Judging the notability of underground literature is essentially impossible until someone writes about it--the devotion of fans is by itself not enough. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost all the sources cited are blogs (including Steinke's own blog), facebook pages, publishers' websites, and sites selling Steinke's work. There is no evidence of significant independent coverage. The only attempt at producing a serious argument for keeping is from Brodo (the author of the article), but that argument really amounts only to assuring us that Steinke's work has been published, and says nothing to indicate the existence of independent notice of him or his work. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources/citations fail WP:RS and as such the subject is not notable. "Up and Coming" and WP:ILIKEIT are not arguments for inclusion. Pmedema (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:RS because sources are blogs and commercial websites—Chris!_c/t 21:35, 18 September 2010 (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.