Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Lawrence Art Collection


 * 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 as full of lies. DS (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Mark Lawrence Art Collection
No references quoted, and I can find none. Suspected hoax article. All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed Mighty Antar (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The original author is a single purpose account, which looks odd as well.  Pharmboy (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. SPA, not to mention the blatant POV in the article. DodgerOfZion (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV aside, no references or sources to indicate that this art collection is notable. Lankiveil (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC).


 * Keep. While there may not be much mention of mr lawrence or his art collection in the form of references,this is a factor he is begining to to change,with high profile donations to museums and new loans to be arranged through out 2008.Please also note that this is a page in the making,it is not yet complete. Nationalgalleryadmin (talk)
 * Comment. You may want to expand your wiki-horizons.  So far, according to your contribs, your English Wikipedia career has been confined to this particular subject.  Just doing what the good book of Wikipedia says. DodgerOfZion (talk) 06:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The lack of references, the general tone, the hero's age, the SPA all make this look extremely like a hoax. If Mr Lawrence does inherit these things in 2008, and if all these high profile happenings happen, then there will be independent verifiable sources and an article can be created. But I shall not be holding my breath. Meanwhile, for a hoax, it's had a good run - six weeks - but it's delete time. JohnCD (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I shall be expanding my "wiki-horizons" but i dont have all day to sit in on wikipedia at the moment.As for JohnCDs comments id like to point out that i dont see how mr lawrence is being made to look like a hero in this article and as for his age,well thats one of the things that make him unique in the art world.you may wish to delete this article but i asure you by the end of this new year it will be back with more references than you can handle. Nationalgalleryadmin (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.203.195 (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * COI Comment Am I the only one who thinks you ARE Mark Lawrence, supported by the image you uploaded http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:N503198853_58306_770.jpg (note perfect viewpoint of camera taking picture of self, including fish eye effect from being too close and poorly cropped on sides to hide the fact.  I do a little photography as well.)  so I would say there is a COI issue, lending more credibility to the hoax, or wp:vanity issues at best.  Pharmboy (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. If reliable refs can be procured to est. notability in the future, author can reintroduce it then. Phyesalis (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - no way to tell if it's a hoaxor not as the information is unverifiable, no evidence of notability due to lack secondary sources. Guest9999 (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)]]
 * Strong delete, no reliable sources indicating any of this is true, so ultimately violates the policy on verifiability. Might be a hoax, and more than definitely some sort of conflict of interest issue. -- Kinu t /c  06:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, is User:Artlover2008 considered a sockpuppet account or an appropriate response (new account creation) to the blocking of User:Nationalgalleryadmin? That needs to be cleared up as well, but that probably is outside the scope of this AfD... -- Kinu t /c  06:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not worth blocking User:Artlover2008 as a sock: how long would it be before User:spiritofbernardberenson or User:tategallerydirector bobbed up to take over? JohnCD (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Commment: an IP (most likely one used by the primary contributor to this article) is repeatedly removing the AfD notice from this article. Continued removal may result in semi-protection. Also, according to the article, the gallery has an official website (http://malartcollection.co.uk)... which is actually an unregistered domain available for purchase. Come on, if you're going to blatantly hoax, try a little harder to make it somewhat convincing. :P -- Kinu t /c  16:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have semi-protected the article after the AfD tag was removed yet again. If an IP wishes to contribute to the discussion, they may do so here. -- Kinu t /c  23:39, 2 January 2008 (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.