Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Lundeberg


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 02:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Bob Lundeberg

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete as complete fiction. No corroboration of any sort on Google - indeed, not one single instance of this name in any connection at all. This article was originally prodded, and the tag removed by the creator with the note that "Verified sources and made minor changes. This page should not be removed as it is true". I beg to differ. HeartofaDog 12:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Also nominated as part of same group the articles Fabulous! and Roy Montgomery Adams - Google is totally silent on these also. I had prodded them, but it seems more effective to deal with all three together here, given that the first one above was deprodded. HeartofaDog 12:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)




 * Delete Even if Bob has existence in reality, and I note the graphic, still fails on WP:BIO and WP:NN and WP:MUSIC. At least.--Anthony.bradbury 17:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Save Bob's Wikipedia I find it almost insulting that you suggest removing Bob Lundeberg's page. Anthony Bradbury and HeartofaDog, you both have no right or duty to do so. As his agent and close friend I can vouch for his existence. I am not surprised that he is not found on a Google search as he does not have a website and is considered, as mentioned in the article, an underground rockstar here in the Willamette Valley who is most-publicized through posters and local literature. Mr. Lundeberg deserves to be recognized on the internet and my only intention was to give him that sense of fame by dedicating a Wikipedia page to him.

As for Fabulous and Roy Montgomery Adams, simply because a Google search brings up nothing cannot be considered valid grounds for deletion of the article. Have you stopped to consider that, as in Lundeberg's case, any published material is found in local newspapers and magazines and not on the internet? Leave them alone, Mr. Bradbury; as far as you know, they are completely valid articles.--Samorado 11:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am kinda confused. I worked as a set designer for fabulous. I agree with Samorado, a lot of stuff from local newspapers is deleted from their databases. It's kind of insulting in fact that the only place where we can get recognized for our work even a little bit, everyone wants to delete us.--Allmighty Jimbo 12:11, 11 February 2007


 * The onus is on you to provide evidence of notability to the standards of Wikipedia - cf WP:BIO, WP:NN and WP:MUSIC mentioned above. HeartofaDog 20:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * HeartofaDog, it is my impression that I have adhered to the rules and stipulations of WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC in Bob Lundeberg's article. Regarding WP:NN, I would be happy to locate and identify some non-trivial published material in support of Lundeberg's accomplishments. "What constitutes 'published works' is broad and encompasses published works in all forms, including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc." (Taken from WP:NN; Primary Notability Criterion). The sources I site will be newspapers and magazines which this excerpt deems appropriate as fulfilling the Notability criteria. After inserting references to published works into the article, I think we can agree that Bob Lundeberg's article will have all the necessary credentials to remain online.--Samorado 11:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete this obvious WP:HOAX now. --Dhartung | Talk 21:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a joke article. --Metropolitan90 22:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note, this should be a delete all; I previously missed the references to the two additional articles being nominated as well. --Metropolitan90 22:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Get it out of here. --Fang Aili talk 17:21, 15 February 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.