Deletion of Mark Lund

Comment: he meets  and
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: 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 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: Self-promotion violating , IMHO, doesn't meet the notability tests.&mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Autobiography (WP:AUTO)

Comment: 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,  tips my hand
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: the subject of the article meets , and there are reliable soruces.  Any  issues can be dealt with through editting
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:COI)

Comment: unsourced |autobiography
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Autobiography (WP:AUTO)

Comment: 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 uto and  and see if you don't understand why that's troubling
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:A||WP:COI)

Comment: Obviously meets otability, although I wish the guy would stop editing his own article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)