Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Piper (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 keep. Consensus was keeping this article as that of a notable artist. This BLP page is part of a well-intended community effort to thoroughly cover the arts. If any part of the biography seems unfair to its subject, she or her representatives are very welcome to address the concern in the text through use of appropriate tags or on the article's talk page. A word on my evaluation process and a concern not addressed here as such: I actively scanned the discussion for spite as it would be a bad reason to keep the article. I saw a hint of it here that took the summary from snow keep to keep. A keep that is based in the policy arguments. I saw one spite comment on the talk page from an IP. I could not connect the comment to its recreation. No real spite in the previous discussion. My conclusion is that, with the appropriate amount of WP self-critique (equal propensity to be blamed for too little or too much), the article was recreated and is kept for the correct reasons. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Piper[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)

The subject does not want there to be a Wikipedia page about her. It has been deleted in the past (which is why I used afd2, even though the previous nomination did in fact lead to deletion}, but the page was then recreated for unclear reasons. I asked three months ago at the article's talk page why this page exists. Nobody responded. The only thing that happened since then is that a vital-5 tag was added. KarlFrei (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The previous deletion was a use of WP:TNT, that the article was so bad that it'd be better to delete it and start from scratch. Not a deletion on grounds of notability. They're too notable to request their own deletion, that idea has only (controversially) been applied in the past to individuals of extremely minor notability. Numerous sources and awards available, clearly noteworthy individual. 92.3.155.60 (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (probably should be speedy keep). My rationale for keep in the first AfD still very much applies. Ms. Piper is a public figure and cannot reasonably expect to have no article on Wikipedia, barring issues with copyright or WP:BLP concerns. Are there any such issues with the current article? Is it written in an inappropriate way? Are there too few sources? Simply put, Adrian Piper passes WP:GNG, WP:ARTIST and any other notability requirement. Anything else is an editing issue, not suitable for AfD. freshacconci (✉) 17:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. 1989 Guggenheim Fellow makes for automatic notability.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Adrian Piper may have legitimate complaints about the accuracy of the article, but the article will not be deleted because she doesn't like it. See https://news.artnet.com/art-world/adrian-piper-wikipedia-page-1269659 for some background info. It should obviously be fixed to remove any errors. Vexations (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Much like one can't decide whether one would prefer to be the topic of a newspaper article or not, one can't decide one one's own inclusion in an encyclopedia. Definitely notable. /Julle (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Piper is a well known international artist. Access to information on her work and career has encyclopedic importance. Netherzone (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2018 (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.