Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorothy King


 * 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. WP:SNOW Peter Symonds ( talk ) 23:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Dorothy King

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

An editor is insistent that the article is not notable, and wishes to keep the "Notability" tag. Others feel that it's already makes clear notability. Rather than a permanent "Notability" tag, or edit warring over the tag, we should decide here if it's notable, and if it's not, delete it. Rob (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Her notability is shown by the sources provided which include reviews of her book and interviews by the BBC and major newspapers. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to have made enough of a splash outside academia (cf WP:PROF point 7). Disembrangler (talk) 09:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Existence of numerous sources such as BBC speaks volumes about subject's notability. --Roaring Siren (talk) 11:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability clearly established by multiple sources.  Esowteric |  Talk  11:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the previous arguments. Notability established by reliable sources. Englishrose (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notability established, repeatedly adding notability tags to this article is just disruptive. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  14:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable reliable sources in the reference section.  D r e a m Focus  21:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowball Keep Easilly passes WP:N with multiple reliable sources running dedicated features on the subject. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * keep Seriously, this is a bit ridiculous. I've even heard of her and I know almost nothing about her specialty. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Instead of all the people claiming she's notable, how about someone come up with an argument that actually meets our notability guidelines and change the article to reflect that? She wrote a book, she's been interviewed about a single topic... none of that shows notability for a separate article. The people who want to remove the notability tag should actually try to document notability instead of removing it, and putting it up for AFD with a lot of WP:ILIKEIT votes is not a substitute for actually improving the article to demonstrate notability. DreamGuy (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:N says the primary notability criterion is: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.".  She appears to have that.  Note, the "significant coverage" doesn't have to actually exist in the Wikipedia article, it just has to exist in reliable sources.  You seem to feel she doesn't warrant significant coverage in reliable sources, but don't seem to deny she has received it. --Rob (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Besides being noted for her controversial book on the Elgin Marbles she is also noted as a conservative blogger and a conservative supporter of Obama in 2008. If she was not notable why would a major political magazine (The New Republic) report on her political opinions? (p.s. I can easily understand why some people find her annoying. :-) )Borock (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong ang speedy keep. Clearly notable per WP:BIO and WP:PROF. ukexpat (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow keep. Obviously notable and sourcable. -- Banj e  b oi   09:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - If this thing snowballs as expected, I hope that if the notability tag returns anyone who removes it can just point to this discussion. To answer DreamGuy, the article has multiple sources that are reliable (BBC News, The Independent, CBC News, The New Republic, The Guardian) and give substantial coverage (the BBC News article is pretty long and wholly about her, The Independent and The Guardian reviewed her book in-depth, and CBC News quoted King throughout the entire article about the Elgin Marbles). I would say that satisfies WP:N well enough. --  At am a chat 22:50, 25 June 2009 (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.