Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chloe Duckworth


 * 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Chloe Duckworth

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I've edited this deletion proposal as it originally included an unnecessary COI discussion with evidence. I regret this as it doesn't belong here and retrospectively I think this should be removed. Nonetheless for transparency the unedited original is here. I've only edited my own text.

There is a strong argument for WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY in this article. I don't believe that the subject passes WP:NPROF, WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG in notability. It's true that the subject is a member of the Society of Antiquaries of London (with societal fellowships usually being an indicator of notability on Wikipedia), but I have problems with this instance. This is discussed below with Russ Woodroofe, and for brevity I won't repeat those arguments about FSAs here. You could argue for a case of being WP:TOOSOON.

The Great British Dig is the only notable media in which the subject has been involved. none of the archaeologists involved have their own articles, except for Duckworth. John Henry Phillips does not. Richard Taylor does not. Natasha Billson does not. A submission was made for Billson which was declined. When you Google the name 'Chloe Duckworth', at least for me, the first result is this very article, the second result is the website of a completely different person, a "student-entrepreneur and sophomore at USC studying computational neuroscience".

I'd argue that in this instance Wikipedia is itself enhancing the subject's notability and esteem with an article. Rather than correct approach of using Wikipedia to reflect notability which already exists.

MemoryForgotten (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Archaeology,  and United Kingdom.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * First of all apologies if this comment is in the wrong place, I haven't done an AFD discussion before. I can confirm that I (Drlmshillito) created this page, my identity on Wikipedia has always been open. I confirm also that I work at the same university as the subject (we are colleagues in the same department), however this is not the reason I created the page and there is no conflict of interest. A check of my history shows clearly that the main thing I do on Wikipedia is create pages for notable female archaeologists and academics. In this case, I created the page as a stub, and the majority of the page was filled out by others. I was suprised by this AFD suggestion as Duckworth is a well known UK TV presenter with a long list of media appearances (including prestigious BBC Expert Women, New Scientist etc), has written a best selling popular book, as well as being a world leading expert in archaeological glass with several authored academic books, is an elected Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, on the editorial board of the international journal World Archaeology etc. They clearly fit the Wikipedia notability criteria for academics. I note that the user who suggested this AFD is a new account that seems to be created solely for this purpose, and the motive is possibly questionable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drlmshillito (talk • contribs) 19:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The created page was not a stub, it contains much of the information that it does now. A significant amount of what has been added was added by ArchaeoAngelGabriel, and I cite WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY on that as above. (Edit: I'll also cite this, the authorship of you and ArchaeoAngelGabriel accounts for 80.2% of the article. Aside from Zakhx150 the others are so insignificant in their edits that the fourth most significant editor of the page is ... me, by flagging it for deletion).
 * There is a clear conflict of interest and vested interest if you know the person you are writing about, and you state here that you do. That was not declared in the correct manner (eg on the article's talk page), and arguing as you do here that your identity is open does not pass the Wiki guidelines.
 * It can be seen that the references for the article are largely profile pages. You can draw a comparison with Natasha Billson's more extensive references - nonetheless the submission was declined, because they were almost entirely personal profiles in the same way.
 * I would argue that your statement that Duckworth is a "well known UK TV presenter with a long list of media appearances" is inaccurate. "Well known" is subjective, I'd argue that her name does not carry much recognisability with the general public, and that the Great British Dig is Duckworth's only media appearance which is actually notable. Again, I'd cite the example of Natasha Billson who has the exact same exposure and notability but had her article declined. The programme itself might be notable but Duckworth herself arguably is not. If you Google the name you might find significant original sources discussing the Great British Dig but not Duckworth individually. You won't find an interview with Duckworth in the Times or the Guardian for instance, even if you might find a review of the show itself. Like I said, potential argument for WP:TOOSOON but I don't think the justification is there yet with only one notable media appearance.
 * I'd argue though that any biographical details justified by Duckworth's appearance on the Great British Dig could be put on that article itself. In any case I believe the guidelines are clear and I'll very happily leave that to the admins' discretion, whatever their view is. MemoryForgotten (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I know the nominator had good intent, but they should be aware of our WP:OUTING policy. Additionally, whether this is a COI or not has little merit at AfD, where we assess primarily article notability. Any concerns about COIs should thus be handled either at the article talk page or WP:COIN, Curbon7 (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Additionally, as a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London, she appears to pass WP:NPROF. Curbon7 (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll keep that in mind, thank you. MemoryForgotten (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , fellowship in the Society of Antiquaries of London appears to be somewhat conflated with membership. I am skeptical as to whether this is the kind of fellowship that meets WP:NPROF C3.  It otherwise looks WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF notability for this 2011 PhD.  WP:NCREATIVE is plausible, but I did not quickly find reviews of the subjects work for this criterion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In my view the Society of Antiquaries of London operates more like an academic private members club, even referring to its ostensible fellows as "members" and offering "affiliate membership" for those who want to pay. That is not exactly something the Royal Society would do. Being an FSA is usually more about who you know than about achievement per se; there are a significant number of FSAs who are early career researchers barely out of their PhDs. If they even have that, a cursory glance at the member's directory (which is public) shows that a significant number are Mr & Ms with just a BA to their name; we aren't talking esteemed professors and you'd be hard pressed to argue that each of them are "notable" by wikipedia's standards. As such you are right in your scepticism that being an FSA is a marker of notability. This is not the Humanities equivalent of the Royal Society as it portrays itself to be. MemoryForgotten (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Affiliate membership is not the same as being elected a fellow of the society. It is essentially paying for access to a library. The idea that it somehow undermines the society is peculiar. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. I'm aware of the difference between the forms of membership, nonetheless being an affiliate also includes "Invitations to Regional Fellows Group Meetings". Overall it's not something that would be offered by the Royal Society, where I doubt you could pay a fee of £5/month to sit alongside its membership at meetings. Whether or not that undermines the Society, without picking on individuals you can judge for yourself the standard of its fellows by scanning the list. There are many more of Mr Bob Smith BA FSA who digs trenches for Wessex Archaeology (not an actual person) and Dr Jane Jones PhD FSA who is an assist prof teaching Classics at a backwater university (again not a real person) than there are Barry Cunliffes and Mary Beards.
 * It's not the Royal Society. Stepping away from whether or not the subject of this discussion counts as "notable" (I see the argument that she has TV appearances etc), I would question more generally whether being a fellow of this particular society meets the "highly selective" society criteria of WP:NPROF 3 as it was intended. You might end up with articles on some very obscure folk if that's all that's required to be noteworthy. MemoryForgotten (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Being an affiliate member is clearly not the same as being as fellow/member. But in any case, I don't feel that being a fellow is sufficient to meet WP:NPROF, but it's a contributing factor in making a case to show notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This conjectural comparison to the Royal Society is completely spurious. The society makes a clear distinction between fellows and members. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree there is a distinction made, that was not my point. MemoryForgotten (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , it looks to me like the most of the members of the society are fellows. It apparently has 3300 fellows in a smallish field in a smallish country; the subject here was nominated a few years after her PhD.  I don't think that all of the fellows are necessarily notable.  Now, the fellowship doesn't hurt notability, and may contribute slightly (as  says).  I suspect that reviews of the books and/or of the program (since she began to contribute) may exist, but I haven't found seen them advanced so far.   Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there a problem with the number of 3300? Richard Nevell (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 3300 specifically isn't the problem. The lack of selectivity is.  For comparison, the number of IEEE fellows selected in a year is at most 0.1% of the voting membership .  (I bring up the IEEE because they are specifically mentioned in WP:NPR C3.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment It is surprising to see a new editor making an AfD nomination in their very first edit. Perhaps the poster has a long history of IP editing? Pam  D  10:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought the same. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I know this isn't a vote, but likewise - all of User:MemoryForgotten's contributions to Wikipedia are on this very page. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per WP:CREATIVE criteria #3, she has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work and that work been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews as she was a presented of The Great British Dig which I think clearly is a significant "collective body of work" CT55555 (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Ignoring all talk on this page about COI, as we're here to discuss if the subject is notable rather than the state of the article, I'm inclined to agree with CT55555, though not sure how significant it is, hence my !vote is "weak". If consensus ends up being to delete, should consider if something can be merged to The Great British Dig as WP:ATD. -Kj cheetham (talk)
 * I'm also not sure how significant the TV show is/was, but it seems clearly "well known" which is an alternative criteria. CT55555 (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: appears to be notable. But there are several odd things:
 * The article stated that she is bisexual, but there is no mention of that in the source given, which only says she is a committee member of an Equality and Diversity Group; I have removed the unsupported statement
 * There seems to be no current staff profile for her at Newcastle, although as recently as Sept 2022 she was mentioned in a news item there as Reader
 * The organisation dig4archaeology which she founded has a website (https://www.dig4arch.co.uk/) which my browser says is a security risk
 * As noted above, the nominator for deletion has done so in their first post, which is unusual. Pam  D  14:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: appears to be notable. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's certain. LvivForev (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd like to see if we can establish a solid NCREATIVE case here via reviews.  There are a couple of reviews/similar of the Great British Dig that mention Duckworth, but I'm a little uncertain of the reliability of those sources.  I can't read , but it looks like it might be relevant.  I found also some reviews of one of her edited volumes , also  of another edited volume -- we don't usually take these as seriously as reviews of authored works, but they contribute something. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment on title If the article survives this AfD it should be moved to the correct spelling of her name, with the diacritical on the "e". But it's bad practice to move during an AfD. Pam  D  00:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:FILMMAKER (The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or review certainly applies here, and you could make a case for WP:NACADEMIC (The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.) if we consider that her role as the archaeological presenter (contrasting Hugh Dennis as the resident comedian) on The Great British Dig is a reflection of her professional role as, well, an archaeologist. If, pre-Dig, she wasn't notable for anything except archaeology, then it seems that we've got a WP:NACADEMIC pass there; if she was, then we've got one under WP:GNG. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added some reviews of her academic work, which help to establish notability under c1 of WP:NACADEMIC - in particular, Recycling and Reuse has been widely praised in the AJA and BMCR, both big-hitting Classical/Archaeological reviewers. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Sounds more like a back-handed compliment to me, sorry. LvivForev (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia! You are the second person who's primary contribution to the website is this specific discussion. Can you tell us what brought you here? Also, who are you replying to?
 * CT55555 (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Glad to confirm that I have no connection to LvivForev. If you're also directing that question to me I have a fairly long but inconsistent history on Wikipedia dating back 17ish years. Initially under a couple of different accounts and also IP editing. I created this account because of needing to be logged in to nominate for deletion. Nonetheless while there's a lot of attention on the page given to my lack of other edits (in this account), I think that it's an unrelated side issue and either the nomination is justified or it isn't. I can see that the consensus is leaning towards keeping and if that's the consensus then I have no argument with that. There's no intent of being underhand, hence following the correct procedure. MemoryForgotten (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My question was to @LvivForev, but thanks for this context nonetheless. CT55555 (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak delete or redirect to Great British Dig, per WP:TOOSOON. For WP:NCREATIVE cases, I'm looking for approximately 2 reviews each of two authored works, or a larger number of reviews of edited volumes.  The reliable source reviews I could find of the Great British Dig focus much more on the (probably notable) main host.  We have a handful reviews of (co)edited volumes, but overall I'm seeing a reasonably sucessful, but still WP:MILL associate professor in a "book" field.  As far as WP:NPROF goes: The citations do not support WP:NPROF C1, and you can see my comments on the society above.  The best case for WP:NPROF is via C7 per .  I do take the start towards this seriously, but again, although I expect the subject to eventually be notable, it looks WP:TOOSOON to me here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The reliable source reviews I could find of the Great British Dig focus much more on the (probably notable) main host
 * I'm not sure I see what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that reviews of the Great British Dig need to focus primarily on Duckworth to count towards a WP:NCREATIVE case? The criteria for c3 per WP:NCREATIVE is:
 * The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)
 * As I read that, what matters is:
 * a) that the person created or played a major role in co-creating the work; and
 * b) that [the] work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * I don't see any suggestion that those reviews need to have mentioned or focused on the person directly. After all, there are plenty of people who are unquestionably notable for having worked on high-profile projects who would rarely be the focus of a review, or indeed even named in one - screenwriters, producers, composers and so on spring to mind. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , I'm not looking for WP:SIGCOV of Duckworth in reviews. But I'm seeing reviews that typically focus on Hugh Dennis a great deal; meanwhile, the number of reviews in reliable sources is not so large.  I don't think there's enough notability from the show (at least at this time) to justify an article on Duckworth just for being one of a team of archaeologists.  I'll make combined notability cases at times, but I'm not seeing one that I like here so far.  Are there reviews of the GBD book, beyond the one in the Telegraph?  These would make the case clearer. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For the show, you've got reviews in the Telegraph, the I, the Herald (big north of the border - I think the third most-read paper in Scotland?). Those are three big, respectable national newspapers, so would seem to meet multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, even if we discount the Herald (edited: I originally, incorrectly, wrote I: that review focuses entirely on the show) review for bundling GBD with a few other programmes.
 * For the book, you've got the review cited in the article from The Past, which is the website that bundles together a few big print publications - Current Archaeology and Military History Matters being the biggest that I know of. There's another in My Weekly, which again isn't small fry: they've got a circulation of about 62,000. So, again, we've got multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
 * So two mass-market works, one co-created, one solo-created, both with multiple independent reviews at a national level. Add to that the academic work: we've got two reviews in big Classical journals for one of her edited volumes already in the article.
 * As before, my reading of WP:CREATIVE is that it's the coverage of the work that matters: if the work meets the part of the criteria I labelled as b) above, and the person meets the part I labelled as a) above, the wording the policy says that they are notable. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Another article on the show's activities from the Express: again, national-level coverage of a creative product she's co-created. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , you've brought me over to a Weak keep. The review in the Telegraph is substantial, once I managed to read it (I had access problems).  I'd seen the review/interview in My Weekly, and discounted it as a possibly-unreliable source, but it seems to be ok.  This is enough to establish WP:NBOOK for her book, and combined with the coverage of the show (which does tend to mention her only as one of a team of archaeologists) and reviews of her co-edited volumes, I think there's a reasonable WP:NCREATIVE case; possibly with some support from WP:NPROF C7.  Note in passing that the Daily Express is generally unreliable, per WP:RSP. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * UndercoverClassicist The application of this criteria seems questionable to me. Can the subject of this article rightfully be credited as a creator of the Great British Dig? I note that all of the examples that wiki cites as creative professionals (authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other) are all people with actual artistic control behind the works they're involved in. They actually created them, and that is to say they are responsible for actually conceptually conceiving the works and then bringing them into life. For instance this category would include a director or a producer (i.e those with creative control) but it would not include an actor. And indeed this is confirmed by actors being categorised as part of Entertainers within WP:NCREATIVE. If a film is not created by an actor, how a 'resident expert' a creator of a tv show they're in? Not only did Duckworth not have a "major role" in creating the show, she did not create it in any sense whatsoever, although she is in it. Its executive producer is Steve Wynne of Strawberry Blond TV and it was commissioned by Tim Hancock; it was they who created the show. (Neither have a wiki page, and incidentally nor does the production company.) It seems that for the argument of Duckworth as a 'creative' to hold, she needs to fit into the category of Entertainer:
 * Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, pornographic actors,[12] models, and celebrities:
 * Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or
 * Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. (Previously #3)
 * A category for which she would seemingly not qualify. MemoryForgotten (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Russ_Woodroofe I'm curious as to your thoughts on the above. MemoryForgotten (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you need to read beyond the shortcut name, they don't need to be the creator, they need to have "played a major role in co-creating". In my analysis, a co-presenter plays a major role in co-creating something. CT55555 (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this one's a little bit subjective, since neither WP:NCREATIVE nor WP:NACTOR explicitly use the word 'television presenter' in delineating the people covered by them. The eligibility for WP:NCREATIVE is defined as such:
 * Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers ... and other creative professionals.
 * I'd certainly suggest that being a 'resident expert' on a show is far closer to being an author or journalist than to being an actor - you're not just brought on to read someone else's lines, but because you are the source of the expertise behind what those lines should be. Of course, no resident expert has 100% control over what they end up saying, but that's true of any author, director or other creative professional.
 * It's probably never going to be verifiable to Wiki's standards how the division of labour for The Great British Dig actually played out, but if someone's role in the show is to provide (and share) expertise, and they are a major part of the show in that capacity, then they should be assumed to have (real, but not unlimited) creative control over their part of it. If there's a reliable source saying that their 'resident experts' are in fact not employed for their expertise, then that could be factored in against that proposition.
 * Journalists certainly don't have total creative control over the newspaper, magazine, television show etc. that they are part of, so I'm not sure where the following is coming from:
 * They actually created them, and that is to say they are responsible for actually conceptually conceiving the works and bringing them into life
 * That definitely doesn't describe, for example, an editor, which is one of the specific named examples on WP:NCREATIVE. I think the standard you are applying here is higher than that written into the policy.
 * Even leaving the TV show to one side, though, there are multiple independent reviews of her books, both solo-written and co-written, which opens a WP:NAUTHOR case on a very similar line to the television one. There's also the WP:NACADEMIC case that, by being on the television show, through her writing and through her various media, festival etc. appearances that have spun off from both, she has had a substantial impact outside academia.
 * UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * (In the time I spent typing that out, User:CT55555 has put the point far more succinctly.) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "I'd certainly suggest that being a 'resident expert' on a show is far closer to being an author or journalist than to being an actor - you're not just brought on to read someone else's lines, but because you are the source of the expertise behind what those lines should be."
 * I'm not so sure, with the Entertainer category including "opinion makers" in particular (Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, pornographic actors, models, and celebrities), I'd argue that the Entertainer fits a resident expert closer than a journalist or an author. While I fully appreciate that you and CT55555 are in agreement here, I see nothing in the category of WP:NCREATIVE that suggests that it isn't as limited and tightly defined as it sounds. As I mentioned before the examples given (authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects) all produce the works they're known for, in a way that would not include actors, presenters, talking heads, panelists. The latter are "the talent" who appear in the work but did not actually produce or create it. You may by all means see me as wrong but there's nothing in the guidelines which counts a presenter as a creative. MemoryForgotten (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Furthermore the sub definition of 'creative', I believe matches this definition of strictly 'someone who produces' exactly.
 * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
 * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
 * The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or
 * The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.''
 * Whereas the sub definition of 'entertainer' I believe fits the role of a 'tv expert' or presenter more accurately:
 * '''Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or
 * 'Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. (Previously #3) MemoryForgotten (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you've got necessity and sufficiency mixed up here - you're certainly right that an auteur with total creative control over their product fits that description, but that definitely isn't the only way to meet it. It would also be highly unusual in English to categorise resident experts and presenters of non-fiction programmes along with actors. It might help if you could provide an example where the WP:NACTOR policy has been applied in a similar case before?
 * ...I see nothing in the category of WP:NCREATIVE that suggests that it isn't... [emphasis mine]
 * I'm not sure that line of reasoning is valid: if we're going to say that the policy has certain restrictions (such as that the person has to have led and/or conceptualised the project with which they are involved, which sounds like what you are suggesting), we need to find something in the policy that says as much. It isn't good enough to say that someone who met this additional restriction would also meet the policy as written, which is where I think your argument above has, perhaps inadvertently, ended up. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * you asked for my take. The subject is listed as a single author on the book associated with the show, and there appear on a second look to be enough reviews to make it a notable book.  Combined with lots of other work with some level of impact (being a member of the archaeological team on the show, the reviewed edited volumes), I think it's (weakly) enough.  I believe that the application of WP:NAUTHOR and/or WP:NCREATIVE is generally consistent with practice at past deletion discussions on academics in book fields.  The persistence of coverage over time and the edited volumes keep this from being a WP:BLP1E situation.  Meanwhile, you've made 32 edits related to this AfD, and no other edits.  Perhaps it is time to find another area to work on? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In the context of everyone here other than you, the nominator, agreeing to keep, I'm going to duck out here, confident that who ever closes this can see the same consensus that I can see right now. CT55555 (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe she has significant coverage, being a resident expert on the show. I found a few other articles in online magazine style publications. I know these might not be regarded as reliable sources, I do believe these build a case for her. Equine-man (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2023 (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.