Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Piper

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. Technically a no consensus but considering the person asked for its deletion and the quality of the article, TNT is needed. Secret ^account 03:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Piper

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

On behalf of Adrian Piper who requested deletion of this page through Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team and gave me permission to attribute this deletion request to him, I am asking the community to consider this page for deletion. Piper states that this page "falsely claims to offer biographical information" on him and that for that reason it should be deleted. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article suffers from major problems which may afflict its longterm maintenance. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 22:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no substance to the article at all. No organized claims to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand Ms. Piper's frustration with a badly written article and if what we had was a copyvio, then obviously we need to rewrite this. However, Adrian Piper is a major artist and is thus a public figure. It would be somewhat akin to Lady Gaga asking us to delete her article because she didn't like what was written. I don't mean to overstate this, but we're not talking about a figure of minor note. Adrian Piper is an artist that is part of art history, has volumes written about her, has been in major museum exhibitions and so on. Even if this article were deleted for copyright reasons, a new article would need to be written in its place. She is a high-profile and public figure and cannot expect to not have a Wikipedia presence nor can she expect to control the content of a Wikipedia article, other than to have an expectation of a neutral and well-sourced article per WP:BLP. If you read her bio on her website you can see that not only does she easily pass basic notability requirements for Wikipedia, she has chosen a public life and cannot simply ask to have her Wikipedia article deleted. Yes, this needs a complete rewrite but other than that, this is an obvious keep. freshacconci talk to me 02:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLOWITUP and start over. -- œ ^™ 12:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT - While what Freshacconci says may be true, the article is in such a bad shape that the best course of action now is toblow it up and start over. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability of the artist is borderline (Google news archive finds a few articles mentioning her but not a lot) and in view of the copyright problems that caused the text of the article to be deleted and her concerns over the quality of its information, I think WP:TNT is appropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Freshacconci is right about Adrian Piper's importance in contemporary art. Lots and lots of material can be seen at GBooks and GScholar. I'm also a little unclear about how the complaint that the page "falsely claims to offer biographical information" relates to the asserted copyright problem that the material has been copied from her official website. Nevertheless, under Wikipedia policy, it's not apparent that we have much of an alternative to starting over; I looked through the edit history in vain for a reasonable version to which we could revert. Any number of books might be used for the restart: basic bio info, for example, here:[1][2][3] --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2013 (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.