Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piper family

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. postdlf (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piper family

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

A list article that would be more appropriate as a navbox or some other sort of navigation aid between related articles. As it stands at the moment, this list article seems to be a cunning ruse for non-notables, such as Prue Piper and Sebastian Piper, to be profiled on Wikipedia. Apart from the Messums gallery catalogue, there seems to be nothing that talks about the dynasty as a whole (though I don't doubt biographies of John Piper will mention his immediate family members). The Piper family is a non-notable subject. Sionk (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Piper family includes a significant number of notable people apart from John Piper, including Myfanwy Piper, Edward Piper, and Luke Piper. Other family members are less well-known individually, but continue the artistic tradition. The family is known as an artistic family within the United Kingdom at least. The joint biography on John Piper and Myfanwy Piper by the art historian Frances Spalding (John Piper, Myfanwy Piper: Lives in art, Oxford University Press, 2009, ISBN 978-0-19-956761-4) covers the family as well. This page is a way of recording the family's artistic achievements as a whole. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of them so their relationship to each other is a notable topic. Szzuk (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? It's simply a list of people related to John Piper. The notable ones already have a Wikipedia article. Once the non-notable ones are deleted, it will serve no purpose. Sionk (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes really! See also the memoir of the potter Geoffrey Eastop, a family friend, on the Piper family: Easton, Geoffrey (2011). The Piper Years: A memoir. Zingaro Books. ISBN 978-0-9566848-2-0. I have added this to the entry. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a book about John Piper. Listing books about John Piper is hardly a development of the article. Be mindful the Henry Piper article was deleted at AfD, so adding it back somewhere else is circumventing the notability process. Sionk (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the book? I don't believe so from your comment since it covers the Piper family as well as John Piper. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That book is clearly about John and Myfanwy though I've no doubt it also mentions their son (who already has a Wikipedia article). I stand by my argument that this list article simply serves the purpose of giving Piper's non-notable descendants an undeserving Wikipedia write-up. Sionk (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't believe that the proposer has read the key references from the comments above. The Piper family has three generations of notable artistic members with Wikipedia entries who are important as an artistic family as well, especially due to their way of life as a family, as covered in a number of referenced books, etc. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not the point. Every very well known person will have their family described in their biography. The question is whether that justifies an article split listing their extended family. And the younger non-notable members clearly don't feature in his biography. There are other, more appropriate and better ways of linking related people together on Wikipedia, without writing a full article. Sionk (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saying something is "clear" without actually reading the relevant references is not academically credible, IMHO. All the people listed in the page are featured in the Spalding book, many extensively, as referenced. The family is linked by its artistic integrity in a similar way to many other families on Wikipedia involved in cultural activities, such as artists, musicians, writers, etc. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: To me the question of primary importance is whether an article enhances the value of Wikipedia to its users. In this case I think the answer is "yes".Tillander 14:01, 19 February 2014 (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.