Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Cullberg


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Tom Cullberg

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable artist. Another in a series of pages created as part of a campaign to promote a particular South Africa art gallery. References are either directly from that gallery or press releases created by them. Vrenator    talk   14:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I had seen this article as part of the author's campaign to promote this gallery, but I didn't nominate this article for deletion because, despite the creator's ill intent, the artist appears to be somewhat notable, based on the significance of his contribution to permanent public collections, including the collection of the Swedish Parliament. This fact is cited in at least one independent review of the artist's work, which one can hope means that the fact has been vetted by an editor somewhere along the line.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ill intent might be too strongly worded. Misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works maybe, but there is no reason to assume that the author understood he was doing something against our practices, and carried on with it for greater evil. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Author's intent was contrary to Wikipedia's policies, but as Martijn has pointed out, was not necessarily malicious.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. This looks like the most notable of this batch of promotional articles. I added another source — a local newspaper, but from a significantly earlier period in his artistic work than the article previously discussed. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 18:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I have found these two references, which seem to indicate a level of notability. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:11, 13 February 2012 (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.