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 due to rewrite. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lund[edit]

The article's creation reads, "12:06, October 9, 2006 MarkAshtonLund Talk contribs This page was written by Mark Lund." This article has received most of its edits from its creator and anonymous IPs. My concern lies with it being a self-published article. Fails - WP:Auto. Recommend deletion. Ronbo76 00:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Big top 00:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDelete self promotion. I like how it has been fixed, no longer selfpromotion The Placebo Effect 00:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lund is not notable as a figure skater and not really notable in the figure skating community. While he did create IFS magazine and was on the judging panel on Skating With Celebrities, I don't think that adds up to enough to call him notable. He is not a skater, a notable former skater, or a skating official. He seems to be simply a businessman using his wikipedia article as a resume. Awartha 01:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep neither self-publication nor self-promotion are automatic deleteion reasons if there is asserted notability with references to substantiate it, which appears to be the case here.--Anthony.bradbury 00:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for self-promotion. boggartlaura
Keep, he is "kinda well-known" in off-ice Figure Skating circles, Google returns Results 1 - 10 of about 1,030 for "mark lund" figure skating. (0.47 seconds) , and without the edit warring, the article would actually be quite decent. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems reliable and notable. It could use a few more references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Self-promotion violating WP:AUTO, IMHO, doesn't meet the notability tests.—ExplorerCDT 02:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources appear backing claims of notability (e.g. magazine circulation, reporting on judging controversy). This reads like PR puffery. When there is doubt about notability, WP:COI tips my hand. --Dhartung | Talk 02:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I am the author of this page. My experience in the world of figure skating speaks for itself and I refer to the user who quoted Google. It is fair to say, that having skated for 10 years, coached for several, published a figure skating magazine for 11 years, appeared on countless TV shows as an expert, my work during the 2002 Winter Olympics, winning an award from the Professional Skaters Association for best figure skating publication, published a book on the sport and was selected by one of the top four networks in the United States for a television show specific to the sport of figure skating, speaks to notability. Whether it is I, or a publicist, or other person that promotes the facts of my experience based on truthful knowledge, the page should stay. This page has been up for months and it is only because of a recent television appearance that certain users want this page removed. Everything in this article is factual and, I believe, keeps within the policies of Wikipedia. This great Web site should not be a forum for those that wish to delete pages because they simply do not like someone or disagree with what they have said.MarkAshtonLundMarkAshtonLund 02:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I nominate solely on the basis of WP:AB. My history of AfD noms is clear. If I were under an influence, I would not nominate nor contribute to the debate. Ronbo76 02:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obvious violation of WP:AB-. Most 'accomplishments' are not notable. (cant log in for some reason)-155.144.251.120 02:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above Farside6 03:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but work to convince Mr. Lund to stop editing his own article - Mark, it's pretty clear that you have sufficient notability to sustain an article here. What many people are having a big problem with is that you're creating and editing it. Please read WP:Auto and WP:COI and see if you don't understand why that's troubling. Otto4711 02:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if... other people start contributing to the article besides Mr. Lund. Overall it does seem notable enough to remain in, but could still use some touching up.Gan fon 03:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced autobiography. MER-C 06:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE autobiographical self-promotion. Somebody above mentioned that this isn't automatic. I wish it were. Writing an article about yourself is the exact opposite of wht we are about. Let someone ELSE write it. MiracleMat 07:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Self-promo. Anjouli 07:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MiracleMat. It should also be noted that Mr Lund wrote the IMDB resume that sources a lot of the article as well. Weak keep Re-write has addressed many of the concerns regarding the article. One Night In Hackney 08:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per WP:AUTO. Notability is irrelevant since User:MarkAshtonLund is the admitted author of the page. If he is as notable as he claims, the page will be re-created by a third party. I see no evidence that anyone is out to get him, despite his personal attack on User:Ronbo76. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Venicemenace (talk • contribs) 17:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Given the drastic rewrite by a third party, I'll change my vote to Weak keep. Venicemenace 15:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:AUTO says this article should be deleted? --Charlesknight 22:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself." Count me among the many. Venicemenace 14:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs an edit by independent editors but a quick google would suggest that this figure warrents a page. I see clean-up and sourcing required (editoral) rather than AFD (Administration). --Charlesknight 22:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person has accomplished nothing worthy of inclusion, other than offending thousands of people — Politmuse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and stubify, pruning it back and letting it grow, respectfully without Mr Lund's contributing. Malla nox 00:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stubify per Mallanox. Lund is definitely is quite well-known as a journalist and publisher in the figure skating world; like Christine Brennan, he's one of the people that the mainstream media tends to bring in as an "expert" analyst on the sport. But like anyone else, he must let other people write the Wikipedia article about him. Dr.frog 04:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now completely rewritten the article as proposed, discarding all the autobiographical and unsourced material and providing verifiable sources for Lund's accomplishments. Mark, please keep your hands off the article now, and let other people write about you based on published sources. That is the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Dr.frog 13:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the subject of the article meets WP:BIO, and there are reliable soruces. Any WP:COI issues can be dealt with through editting. -- Whpq 17:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seven external and separate references, very NPOV, no reason to delete. The problem here is the nominator's misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy and failing to realizing that not everything is set in stone. He needs to see WP:IAR. John Reaves 17:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep! An article about someone notable should not be deleted only because the creator is the subject. As far as I can tell, Mark Lund is notable per Wikipedia:Notability (people) Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable (...). for his career as the long-time publisher of International Figure Skating Magazine for 11 years, as well as CNN and other media companies usage of him as an expert in relation with ice skating.

Put together with the rest I'd say that he's notable enough to stay, regardless of how the article got started, who edited it, and who/how many people will edit it in the future! Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 19:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He's a journalist, not an athlete. Awartha 19:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Right, my rewrite has removed all content relating to Lund's own skating career since it appears he was never notable enough as an athlete to have verifiable, third-party references about his skating accomplishments. But his publishing/media/TV accomplishments are verifiable. Dr.frog 20:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed reason for keep based on Dr.Frog, but still a strong keep from me! Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 22:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he meets WP:BIO and Dr.frog's rewrite looks good. I've cautioned the subject about editing the article. Really, it just needs to be watched by a few editors and it should be fine.--Isotope23 20:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is possible to write a balanced and referenced article about oneself. This page, or any other, should not be deleted based on blind following of Wikipedia policy. John Reaves 22:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there is nothing in current policies saying that articles where the subject is also the author has to be deleted. However, due to the possibility for bias, it's advised against, regardless of weather it's Jimbo or others! Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 23:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously meets WP:Notability, although I wish the guy would stop editing his own article. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 00:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original reasons, if he's actually that notable then one of his "fans" will write the article when needed. Nashville Monkey 10:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I will admit Dr.frog's edits are a step in the right direction. Nashville Monkey 10:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if Mr. Lund keeps his editing of this page to a minimum Because previous to Dr.frog's edits, some of Lund's edits seemed really close to violating WP:COI. --Lmblackjack21 17:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Obviously watch for the author editing and ensure everything is well sourced, but that applies to all biographies anyway, regardless of autobiography concerns. CiaranG 13:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanispamcruftisement Guy (Help!) 23:01, 15 January 2007 (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.