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. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Anthony Lawrence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable individual known for a WP:1EVENT. Lacks non-trivial support beyond that event. Verges on vanity article. reddogsix (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Keep - I would argue that the individual I am attempting to write an article on is notable. Certainly in the art world and has featured in enough National and International media reports to warrant a page about him. Maybe the current one is too detailed, but I believe that he will feature in further news reports that could build towards the article already created. I request that it is not deleted but simply edited down. Also, why was the article not nominated straight away by (talk) ? I think this individual has more independent references in relation to their name than a lot of articles on Wikipedia Paulartfan (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at best as the current information is altogether still questionable and also including that of the applicable notability, there's nothing else convincing for improvements, and if there ever is, we can wait for that with restarting or otherwise something new. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteNot notable. Weak references.RockyMtChai (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep - Article is interesting and the subject is noteworthy in English art collecting history. Improve pages references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.175.21 (talk • contribs) — 82.7.175.21 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment - Please indicate how being an interesting article meets any of the criteria for inclusion. reddogsix (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Coverage about him is primary or local, with the exception of one mistake/hoax which got significant coverage. The mistake/hoax is not notable enough for its own article, and nothing else about him is notable. --MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2016 (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.