Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Lundberg

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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Lundberg[edit]

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

WP:COI and probably WP:AUTO by Cmakers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sourced entirely from the subject's own sites, no credible notability, all sources are primarily about Circlemakers not this person. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see any justification for the nom. There are plenty of references available on Google Books and Google News for Lundberg, not to mention the existing external links section of the article, e.g. ABC News: "John Lundberg, a world-renowned crop circle architect", a BBC documentary, BBC News, etc. Ty 19:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by User:Tyrenius that do address the individual. The nom's concern is well founded in that the articles is in great need of cleanup and proper sourcing, as that excessive linkfarm should be turned to citations where possible and removed if not, and cites that go back to any SPS should be removed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources I mentioned, e.g. ABC News, are already in the article in the EL section. If an article needs cleanup and sourcing etc, the solution is to add tags such as {{cleanup}} and {{refimprove}} + {{linkfarm}}. Not all the EL need to be removed, and some use of SPS is allowed per WP:SELFPUB. Ty 12:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, seems worthwhile...Modernist (talk) 04:44, 16 March 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.