Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Prent

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 keep (non-admin closure). Gary King (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Prent

Mark Prent (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Article is written by the subject of the article, thus an obvious WP:NPOV breach. Also, the person appears to be non-notable; per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


In Response to Your Concerns (refactored layout of header, text unchanged by Fram (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

I've posted this response on three different pages, because I'm not sure which is the right one. Sorry about that.

This article is not written by Mark Prent, because I am not him. I only made the account name the same as his, because I don't plan to add or edit any other articles on Wikipedia with this account. I'm not sure how Mr. Prent does not qualify as a notable person, as his work has been featured in in many primary and secondary sources. Although there isn't much available online, he's been in several books and I'd be more than happy to cite them. Mark Prent also owns a well-known and highly respected molding and casting company, and produces technical videos. His sculptures are also regularly on display at various galleries, and have been bought for many different private collections. Other articles on Wikipedia make mention of Mark Prent, including the "Avrom Isaacs" and "Lothar Wolleh" articles.

Also, according to Wikipedia, this should not be already tagged for deletion: "If you know that it will take you a few edits to properly list references, put the template "{underconstruction}" on top of the page to signify to other editors that you are working on it, so they don't tag it for deletion yet."

As I am working on obtaining more sources, and since the article is listed as being incomplete, there should be no reason to tag it for deletion less than 2 hours after I created it.

I will continue editing the page to make it more neutral, as I agree with you on that point. Otherwise, though, I feel like the concerns you raised with the article are very vague, so it would be extremely helpful if you could clarify a bit more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markprent (talk • contribs) 08:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep if sourced. COI is not reason for deletion. Nor is failure to have NPOV. COI is reason for careful checking and editing,to make sure the information is accurate and the subject notable. Given that the subject is asserted to have appeared in multiple major exhibitions, and to have received major awards, he probably does meet the standards for creative professionals. When you make a nomination like this, explain what part of the standard is not in your opinion being met. If you cant find sources, say so. DGG (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG. The article will require a major rewrite, however. freshacconcispeaktome 16:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment needs referencing and peacock prose removing, but if has had the solo exhibitions he/it claims, he would be notable. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The "underconstruction" tag was placed on the article prior to being nominated for deletion. As the original editor has asserted that he is not the subject of the article, and he had placed the tag to indicate that more edits were forthcoming, is this AfD not perhaps a bit premature, if not bad faith? Should we speedy close as keep and let the original editor make his edits, while leaving up the other tags, per Johnbod's comments? freshacconcispeaktome 17:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG. Comment: Similarly, I am not Thomas Edison. Edison (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Extensive critical review here[1] and film documentary here[2]. Some more refs may need to be cited since just citing commercial "solo exhibitions" may not meet WP:BIO. Commercial "solo exhibitions" is something most artists do. WP:BIO sets a level higher than that, namely: "permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries". Commercial gallery solo exhibitions are not permanent by definition. The museum level exhibitions must have a record somewhere. Article needs cleanup since there is a WP:COI problem. The primary editor needs to read that guideline and try to adhere to it. The current article simply does not put forward the "gist" I get from the cited critical review (especial in the lead). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:40, 19 February 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.