Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florence Peake


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Florence Peake

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:ARTIST, as I can only find a few unreviewed exhibitions. The only claims of notability on this page are that the subject is the descendent of notable people. But notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Trying to pass WP:ACADEMIC, since the subject teaches, also appears to fail. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Take out her ancestry and her teaching and there's nothing left.--Dmol (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: no indication that topic meets WP:CREATIVE or WP:PROF. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears to be a non-notable artist with notable ancestors; but the said ancestors have their own articles, and notability cannot be inherited, as the nominator says.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete—As per nomination: falls short of the criteria of both WP:ARTIST and WP:ACADEMIC. Meph talk 16:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I searched for sources discussing Florence Peake herself beyond her ancestry and didn't find enough to justify an article.--Michig (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. appears to be a notable artist who just happens to have notable ancestors.  She might fail to meet WP:PROF but that's because she's not an academic like an art historian who writes papers and books about art, but is a teacher who teaches art, so she's not going to have tonnes of papers on Google Scholar.  That said, the teaching contributes some notability without being of overriding importance.  What does contribute importance is the fact that she has had NUMEROUS, WP:CREATIVE exhibitions at various institutions, most notably the National Portrait Gallery, and the Slade School of Art.  She has collaborated extenstively with other notable artists including Gaby Agis, Joe Moran, Mirranda Pennell, Kirstie Richardson, Nicola Conibere, Serena Korda, Robin Deacon and Gary Stevens, Katye Coe, Joe Moran, Polly Hudson and Sally Dean.  THAT CONSTRIBUTES SOME MORE NOTABILITY.  Furthermore, the ancestry is interesting in itself, as demonstrated by the Daily Mail article.  If we just limit ourselves to direct line ancestors, her Mother, Fater, maternal grandfather, paternal grandmother, paternal grandfather, plus great-grandfather great-grandmother, great-great-grandfather, great-great-grandfather another reat-great-grandfather, great-great-great-grandfather, great-great-great-grandmother, great-great-great-great-grandfather, another great-great-great-great-grandfather, great-great-great-great-great-grandfather, another great-great-great-great-great-grandfather, and that's excluding uncles and cousins.  That contributes some more notability. When you look at it like that and put your liberal idealism of only gaining notability through "achievements" aside.  But she still meets WP:CREATIVE.  (I also wouldn't count Hrafn's vote). Flying Fische (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am bewildered as to why requiring a subject to have their own reason for notability (rather than just having some connection with someone who has such a reason) constitutes "liberal idealism", but whether or not that is so, it is the currently accepted standard on Wikipedia. You are, of course, perfectly free to start a discussion to consider whether this standard should be changed, but this discussion will be closed by an administrator who will assess it on the basis of current practice, not on the basis of what you would prefer practice to be, so if you want the article kept you will be more likely to succeed if you give reasons why the subject satisfies current standards. "She has collaborated extenstively with other notable artists" falls under "notability is not inherited". You say "the teaching contributes some notability", can you explain why? Clearly not everyone who has ever taught is notable, so we need reasons why this particular teaching is special. The article does not mention the National Portrait Gallery exhibition: can you show that it has received significant mentions in reliable third party sources? JamesBWatson (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:RS are insufficient for WP:ARTIST, WP:CREATIVE, WP:N, etc. User Flying Fische appears to be unaware of how WP notability works. Qworty (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge a couple of lines to mum/dad. Not individually notable. Johnbod (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Using Flying Fische's reasoning, I would have my own article. At least two dozen of my ancestors have a Wikipedia article.  So by extension, all my kids, my siblings, nieces and nephews, etc, are all notable for the same reason and deserving of an article. Hardly seems like a workable idea.--Dmol (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. We evidently all recognize the irrelevance of the above arguments favoring famous ancestors and lots of teaching and collaboration. The only real source seems to be the Daily Mail article, but that is a rather trivial mention strictly on the basis of her being some n-th generation descendent (among many spotlighted in the article) of Chas Darwin. The WP article claims "Peake has exhibited a number of times", but honest searching only turns up trivial mentions in various obscure publications, like in the Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning bulletin from this college: "...in particular, artists such as [long list of names], Florence Peake, [long list of names], to name but a small selection". This is an uncontroversial delete. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2011 (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.