Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Max Lawrence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

Peter Max Lawrence

[edit]

The result was Keep. After sorting through this mess of an AFD it seems there is minimal reason to keep the article. The consensus is not firm either way in my judgment. The reliable sources are borderline but probably do rise to a sufficient level to make the decision to keep. When all aspects are considered we are better off to keep than to delete this one. JodyB talk 01:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Max Lawrence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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]

looking at all the links provided further down by MQSchmidt, accepting those are the closest things to reviews that can be found, I continue to say, weak keep. DGG (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC) DGG (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[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]
User:Neutralsutures has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Dreadstar † 01:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • →Comment: That's pretty funny "Neutralsutures". "Why is it that one individual is making so many claims based on blind assumptions that revolve around several anonymous users including the accuser." Coming from an anonymous user like yourself. Pretty sure you are Peter Max Lawrence again because no one else has been updating his page but him, oh and also, you have no other history besides updating this article and just creating this account today. I'll have to add this name too to the open sockpuppet case.Modestprotest (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE: Sockpuppet case against Petermaxlawrence is now closed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Petermaxlawrence. All of the aliases WhtPratphall, Pratphall, Waitformyturn, and Neutralsutures show "the pattern of behavior and edits from the other accounts are sufficiently similar to establish disruptive sockpuppetry" and have been blocked indefinitely, including Petermaxlawrence. I hate to toot my own horn, but, turns out my suspicions were validated. And because of this action, can we now get back to the discussion of deleting this account?Modestprotest (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DISPUTING THESE ACCUSATIONS: Hello, there is no valid rationale for requesting the deletion of this bio page by anyone other than the artist. Inaccuracies can simply be, and appear to have already been, edited according to facts. Given my research into the minimum criteria for authorized biographies on Wikipedia, this profile meets all required standards. FACTS: Peter Max Lawrence is an internationally exhibited artist (contesting to what scale would be completely subjective), Peter Max Lawrence has work in numerous private collections, and works by Peter Max Lawrence have graced the covers of two Darren Smith novels, both of which have been ISBN coded, both of which are available via Amazon.com, Borders, and Barnes & Noble. This final point alone argues the validity of a biography for this particular artist, though other relevant points have been posted above by both Schmidt and freshacconci. REGARDING THE ISSUES OF IDENTITY, EDITING AND AUTHORSHIP: This entry has existed for over 18 months and has only been contested by a few individuals, i.e. less than five, among millions of daily Wikipedia users. Clearly, as they themselves have admitted, the parties contesting and complaining about this particular Wikipedia entry have some personal relationship to, and/or familiarity with the artist. This alone seems to present a conflict of interest with their position regarding the validity of this page. While it is obvious that actual persons have rights to edit and contest content on Wikipedia, it appears that the only person in this entire conflict arena who has readily identified themselves to date is in fact Peter Max Lawrence. Accusations regarding identity made by anonymous sources are, by both common sense standards and in any court of law, self-nullifying. CONCLUSION: Since some of the contesting parties have already admitted to some personal familiarity with both Peter Max Lawrence, artists cross-referenced on this page, and SFAI faculty, their actions seem to have no agenda other than that of a personal vendetta. For those who claim to hold such high regard for the standards set by Wikipedia, it's funny they would use the same forum to pursue such an agenda. I would recommend that this page, as well as sources and names cited on it, be checked by identifiable third parties with no relationship to the artist. I regret that I do not find myself in such a position, as I am a personal friend of the artist, posting here only to call attention to the absurdity of such complaints. Jonsajda (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the user's first edit--Jonsajda (talk · contribs · logs) Dlohcierekim 23:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's so funny and telling how the comment after "Jonsajda" is by an admin that says "This is the user's first edit". Honestly, I don't care how notable or not notable Peter Max Lawrence is. The point is this: he has tried over and over again to circumvent Wikipedia policy by making fake names (sockpuppets) to disrupt this deletion arbitration and continue to make edits to his own article, which is HIGHLY discouraged by the Wikipedia community. The fact that all of these names have been blocked only prove that he is trying to go around rules that make Wikipedia a legitimate site. Oh and one more thing: I had to open up ANOTHER sockpuppet case against Petermaxlawrence with the name "Blastina" to point out efforts to edit the article... the same exact edits that were attempted by Neutralsutures, in which he got blocked for.Modestprotest (talk) 23:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You really seem to be on a crusade here. This has lost all relevance to the subject at hand in this discussion- whether or not the subject is sufficiently notable to have an article here. He may or may not. I say "delete"; DGG says "keep." Which is pretty unsurprising. Your continual commenting about the evils of other editors in this discussion are not germane and are in fact disruptive. I would strongly suggest that you take a break from making irrelevant comments here. You don't care about the notability of the subject? Fine, please take it elsewhere. Dlohcierekim 23:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. I got wrapped up in the sockpuppet cases and thought they should be mentioned here. I realize that I should not have done that and that it's irrelevant. Will take a break and let this process take its course.Modestprotest (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see this as meeting WP:BIO. No real assertion of meeting WP:BIO in the article. No adequate sourcing in the article. The links listed above by Schmidt are not significant, non-trivial coverage. No Google book or scholar hits. Has not recent significant recognition. Dlohcierekim 23:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting to note that Modestprotest (talk · contribs · logs) has made no edits beyond this discussion and the related campaign against the sock puppets of Petermaxlawrence. Dlohcierekim 23:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since I have already been accused of being an identity-alias by the anonymously posting Modestprotest, who has also gone so far as to open a sockpuppet case against me after my very first comment (which is absurd), I am going to go ahead and clear the record, as with my original post, that I am actually a real person, associate of the artist, and will make a claim here and now that Modestprotest seems to be nothing more than a vindictive student at the San Francisco Art Institute who has a personal grievance against Peter Max Lawrence and is using the Wikipedia site to pursue a personal attack against the artist. If this is not the case, my apologies in advance, but for the sake of clarity, accuracy, and honest transparency, I ask Modestprotest to cite how they first encountered this Wikipedia page, how it is that they are familiar with artists, students, and faculty at SFAI (to the point of speaking with an SFAI faculty, which was admitted in an earlier comment), to further reveal their actual identity and why they are pursuing this attack when there are an infinite number of cases on Wikipedia that challenge the criteria for biographical postings. I can find no other cases that Modestprotest appears to be pursuing on Wikipedia. I am open to discussing whether or not this page should continue to exist by criteria standards (and as an associate of the artist, have been requested to assist with its removal), but I'm not about to do that with an anonymous poster who appears to have a very vindictive and personal agenda here.Jonsajda (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Jonsajda, please see the Wikipedia definition of "meatpuppet". It is different. Thank you. Modestprotest (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  17:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woooooooow, that's quite the crusade. Whilst the COI is pretty obvious, the relentless pursuit of the perpetrator leaves a very sour taste in the mouth. Talking about the article and the subject within (for a change), it doesn't appear that he is notable. He certainly has pervaded varied avenues of the Interburg, but I can't find anything that really fulfills WP:BLP at the moment. So, Delete until it can be assured. onebravemonkey 20:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Woooooow indeed! I have the strongest feeling that if all the socks had not come forward protesting the "proposed deletion" this discussion might have calmly turned to perhaps working on correcting COI and sourcing and improving of an article now Wiki's, had [6][7][8][9][10] shown enough with which to work. I might even have taken a stab it it myself. However, that battle has most definitely darkened thae air and sullied the ground. So now?? Nahhhh. That would reward bad behavior. Sheesh. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bit confused by that, Michael... I'm not recommending deletion due to the activities of either party in this. In fact, if I were to do that, I'd also certainly be inclined to keep it. As it is, though, the sources you've given don't really go far enough towards fulfilling WP:RS, in my book. However, as I inferred above, I do feel that given a few years the subject may clear the bar. onebravemonkey 06:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right. as the purposes of the autho, SPA puppets, and SPA nominator have actually done much to obscurficate the issue. Well, I like a challenge, and never heard of this guiy before this AfD. So... I have just spent the last 2 hours going through the article myself. It has received a major sandblasting. I have found reviews of his works and have been able to source quite a bit so far. I am not by any means finished. After a few hours sleep, I will get back to it. Any asertion without a reliable source will be removed. When I am through... and it should not be too much longer... I will ask you to look in and review your delete opinion. I will not ask any of the SPAs to comment, as their opinions are quite clear. Fair enough? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Far improved, but I still don't think he's notable. Who "critically acclaimed" "Queer in Kansas"? Did you see it btw? The galleries exhibited in, which are key to notability for young artists like this, seem small & local. Johnbod (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the "far improved". We do what we can. "Queer in Kansas" reviews/mention No, I have not, nor likely ever will see the film. As for the galleries, I had not thought to include reviews to show the galleries own notabilities, local or not. Do you think it is important do do so? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt if it matters. The film is (or was) linked to off his website. Johnbod (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... trust me... I removed COI links to his website or that of his publishing house, just to be sure. And in checking after your comment, I found that I had indeed included a ref to the article where the film was reviewed by The San Francisco Bay Times. But since you brought it to my attention as a concern, I also included some of the specific review at "critical response". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - despite the shrieking of my inner deletionista. The improvements made to this article are just that, improvements. I'm convinced that they establish notability - just. X MarX the Spot (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although the article has improved thanks to Michael (above); I stand by my previous opinion...he's not ready for prime time....Modernist (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- if the real Peter Max Lawrence is participating in this discussion, and really wants the article deleted, I would encourage them to establish they are the real Peter Max Lawrence through opening an OTRS ticket. Otherwise, hats off to Michael Schmidt, who, I agree, has established that PML meets the criteria for inclusion here. Geo Swan (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I looked at the sockpuppet investigation record. And, unless I am missing something, it seems to me that the diffs the investigating admin cited that they believed established that User:Petermaxlawrence is the same individual as the sockpuppets -- do not actually establish User:Petermaxlawrence is the same individual as the sockpuppets. Geo Swan (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- User:Modestprotest, when a new contributor arrives, and immediately engages in non-beginner activities, like nominating articles for deletion; when they edit only a few articles, one a single topic -- it triggers a concern that this new contributor may be a sockpuppet. There are valid reasons for wikipedians to retire old ID, and initiate new ones. But, I think it is reasonable for established wikipedians who retire an ID and start a new one to put some kind of disclaimer on their talk page. I'd appreciate it if you would offer an explanation of your previous wikipedia career, because your profile fits that of typical sockpuppets. I think this is particularly important now because it would help us all know you were not in a conflict of interest. If you think you have a good reason to protect your anonymity I'd appreciate it if you offered a note that said something like:
Although this is a relatively new wiki-id those who suspect I am not new to the wikipedia are correct. Trusted administrator XXX will confirm they agree I have a valid reason to retire my old ID and a valid reason to keep my old ID confidential.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think I found enough away from the subject's websites to show passing WP:Creative... just. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having had a look at the article following Michael's work, I'm now changing my view to a weak keep. In particular it was the Saatchi and the SF Bay Times sources that tipped it for me. I'd recommend moving some of the comments under the "Critical Repsonse" section into "Career" to avoid it sounding like a puff-piece but that's merely formatting. I think the basic details are sound... perhaps not as sound as I'd like, but sound enough to remain. onebravemonkey 09:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::Saatchi: Anyone can create a profile on Saatchi's website. See http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/yourgallery/register. There was a link sent out to SFAI students a couple years ago recommending that we all make a profile so our work can be seen. Same with: http://www.americanartists.org/art/artist_detail_87.htm. While I agree that the article has been significantly improved by Michael and I commend his time and effort to make the article neutral instead of self-promotional, I must stress the many DIY artist websites that are offered to us in which we can show our work to an internet audience. P.S. The "Tornado Gallery" is not a "real" gallery and what I mean by "real" is that it is not seen as an established, functional, open to the public gallery in San Francisco. It is a small room in his apartment that he calls a gallery and opens up to friends when he has parties. Most of the time the room is used as a 2nd bedroom. Please see the "gallery" website at http://tornado-sf.blogspot.com. <Modestprotest (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand your position already. Please note that AFD isn't a vote. Thanks. onebravemonkey 14:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::::Well, I am not sure if you do understand because I wasn't establishing a position. I was merely clarifying some things people might find to be showing notability. Like Saatchi in your case, and I wanted to show that the online gallery is something that PML created himself, not Saatchi employees, curators, et. al. Also Michael has been using this page to show everyone his improved edits in an effort to "Keep" this article. If he can do that, why cannot I point out the still existing problems with it? Modestprotest (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on your talk page to try and alleviate this, frankly, bloody messy AFD. onebravemonkey 14:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my response. Thank you and I hope it helps with understanding where I am coming from.Modestprotest (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Am moving some discussion to my usertalk page, to avoid disruption of the AfD process. Thank you. Modestprotest (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Max_Lawrence&oldid=1138223425"