Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Max Lawrence

Peter Max Lawrence

I am requesting that this article be deleted for several reasons listed below: 1. I have a very strong suspicion that Peter Max Lawrence not only created this article, but has been the only one maintaining it. If you look at the history (administrators can see IP addresses) almost all the names listed there like WhtPratphall, Pratphall, Verdequete, Waitformyturn are probably linked to the same IP address. These "users" also have no userpages, and therefore, makes me think they are just aliases of Peter's to promote himself on Wikipedia. Almost -ALL- the links go to his own website and Paper Waster Press is also his company. Wikipedia is NOT a RESUME website. 2. Peter Max Lawrence logged on as Waitformyturn was the one who removed my initial request for deletion from this page. This is why I have now submitted it for debate by other Wikipedia users. I am sure I will find more aliases of Peter's on here defending himself, and would like honest Wikipedia users to intervene. 3. In the history section Peter Max Lawrence logged on as Waitformyturn also slanders a student at the San Francisco Art Institute by putting a link to his myspace page. I assume he is blaming this person for the problems he is experiencing on Wikipedia. He also has slandered other users who have made comments on this talk page under the name "Roberta Soltea" and wrote a lengthy open letter to one of the users about how "Roberta Soltea" is a real person. I removed that nonsense from the talk page. 4. Basically this article is causing a lot of problems on here and more importantly, it is completely, a self-made vanity article and should be deleted. Modestprotest (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Now that the article belongs to Wiki, can it be trimmed down and made encyclopedic? I did find a few sources [1][2][3][4][5], etal, that seem to suggest he does have a (minor) notability and that this article might be neutrally sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My main concern is that it seems like this article was written by Peter Max Lawrence himself, and is it not strongly discouraged within the Wikipedia community to do so? Just because there are some websites out there that mention his name, should any person with minor notability be allowed on Wikipedia? As long as they reference some third party article with their name in it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modestprotest (talk • contribs) 21:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well... the article is wiki's now. If his notability (minor) can be addressed neutrally, does it not improve wiki to keep it? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep but only if someone can find a review of the work somewhere. DGG (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The "real" Peter Max Lawrence has written a lengthy retort about what has been going on in this article. Seems pretty fishy and defensive. What do you guys think? Check it out for yourself on his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_Max_Lawrence Modestprotest (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Modestprotest[reply]
Question: Based on his reply above, the "real" Peter asks that this article be removed. Do you think I should go ahead and just put the delete tag up again? Modestprotest (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Modestprotest[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Strong Delete Not ready for this encyclopedia.....maybe in a few years, maybe never..Modernist (talk) 01:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The more I think about this, the more it seems like a travesty, I changed my opinion to strong delete..Modernist (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
→Comment: It is a travesty! This guy went to the SF Library (IP address trail) today just to avoid the sockpuppet case I opened to update his Wikipedia page. Can someone please just delete this already!?Modestprotest (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral He seems notable enough to me, although sources are lacking at this point. If it can be confirmed that the artist himself wants this deleted, then it should probably be deleted. He's young: it can be recreated in years to come. freshacconci talktalk 01:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Opened up a sock puppet case against Petermaxlawrence and his several aliases to avoid scrutiny in creating his own article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Petermaxlawrence Modestprotest (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Modestprotest[reply]
Concern with Modestprotest: This seems to have been a fairly easy edit on a mostly uncontroversial matter. Why is it that one individual is making so many claims based on blind assumptions that revolve around several anonymous users including the accuser. If the artist still wants the page down after it has been brought up to compliance, that is their prerogative. I'm not a frequent user of this site and my edits may be imperfect. I would appreciate if a more avid user could clean up any mistakes.Neutralsutures (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]