Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurence Gardner

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.

The result was no consensus. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe

[edit] Laurence Gardner

Laurence Gardner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article has been in existence since March 2004, and remains a stub. There's a redirect from 'Sir Laurence Gardner', and "Sir Laurence Gardner" Gsearch scores 483 unique Ghits, most of which are relevant. However, the vast majority are from alchemy sites (and their mirrors), as well as other sites whose reputation I do not recognise, and which seem to be using the same weasel-worded assertions (eg "best-selling author", "internationally known sovereign genealogist" as his website. It appears that a lot of the content was contentions (see talk page), including his claims of membership of this and that, which may or may not be bogus. Looking at the links, it appears that he seems to exist in a rather mystical and esoteric world, and his titles and honours could well be self-awarded, as the web links appear to be a walled garden of self references. He appears to be the only Chevelier Labhren (137 unique Ghits) and Knight Templar of St Anthony (33 unique Ghits)in the world. There is clearly a total absence of reliable sources about his bio which is fuelling the edit wars of this article. His books are published by a major house, but except for one which ranks #32,578th, usually languush in Amazon rankings of 6 figures despite the claimed "intenational bestseller status". I have so far found one independently published review which would allow the subject to fulfill WP:BIO. Delete per WP:V. Ohconfucius 03:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. MER-C 03:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I did a ton of searching on this one, especially focusing on his individual books. There's a lot out there, but so far NOTHING is reliable. --- RockMFR 04:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Independently published author with several books released. I found a couple reviews here. He's apparently notable enough for renowned conspiracy theorist David Icke to claim that he's a reptilian shape-shifter. While he's probably more discussed on the web than in the more reliable print medium for various reasons, he does seem to be well-known in his field. --Jackhorkheimer 04:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Bec-Thorn-Berry 11:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete until article asserts notability with credible sources. Akihabara 12:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as per Jackhorkheimer Travb (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jackhorkheimer. Jefferson Anderson 17:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment—Further research shows that Laurence Gardner is a chief proponent of Michael Lafosse's claim to be head of the House of Stuart[1], which I think only furthers that there should be a Wikipedia article on this. This may also explain why the editing of this page might be contentious. --Jackhorkheimer 22:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Added some citations as well as links to additional publications. CuriousGiselle 23:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per informative nom.--Dakota 00:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Davidpdx 09:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Stong keep per Jackhorkheimer - renowned conspiracy author whose books are independently published and available through major dealers such as Amazon (eg. [2] and Waterstones.) According to the Amazon review cited above, his book 'Lost Secrets of the Sacred Ark' was a Sunday Times No. 8 bestseller. Also, a google search for his name (excluding 'Sir') results in 1.03million hits. The publisher's (Harper Collins) site cites a Daily Mail review [3]. Ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 21:11, 16 December 2006 (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.