Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Max Lawrence (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Max Lawrence[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I tried to clean this BLP article up today; in the process I don't think this meets WP:GNG. Also there are still a lot of issues with reliable sources WP:RS as of now. If you look at the prior AfD from October 2008 and the article talk page there is a history of either COI or sock puppet issues too. Joojay (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joojay (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Joojay (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Joojay (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will add there are a lot of citations on the article right now, but many of them are poor sources, primary sources, or merely mention his name. Joojay (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @Joojay, if they have their art work exhibited isn’t that per se a requisite in WP:CREATIVE for then to be considered notable? Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately they have no significant exhibitions, so it does not meet the criteria for WP:CREATIVE. Joojay (talk) 21:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Meets a criterion from WP:CREATIVE. Celestina007 (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @Celestina007, which exhibition is considered "significant" for this artist, in your opinion? Joojay (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joojay, In all, at the very least, I think a WP:BASIC argument can be made here. I’m striking out my original !vote and changing it to WK. Celestina007 (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep — I believe the summation of all the sources optimized here makes a BASIC argument plausible. Celestina007 (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @Celestina007, which source(s) has "depth of coverage", all I see here is trivial coverage of a subject (unless it was a primary source or self-published). Joojay (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BASIC doesn’t require WP:SIGCOV or WP:INDEPTH to be met that is literally the idea of WP:BASIC as opposed to GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the description again on WP:BASIC, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I am asking, where is there significant coverage? He has multiple sources as I stated before just in name, it doesn't fulfill BASIC, GNG, CREATIVE. Joojay (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also as a reminder this is a BLP, and the primary sources don't count towards notability of a subject.Joojay (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joojay “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.” you keep asking for SIGCOV when BASIC doesn’t require SIGCOV and what you stated above pertains to GNG not BASIC. Celestina007 (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just peeped JodyB's, rationale for the Keep close which for record purposes I hadn’t done prior now & the rationale they gave for closing this as a Keep back in 2008 correlates with why I !voted a week keep. Celestina007 (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 13 November 2021 (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.