Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorothy King (2nd nomination)


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Dorothy King
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Two reasons for nominating for deletion.

Firstly, King is surely not notable enough to warrant a wikipedia biography. Her written work is neither significant nor prolific - there are countless academics and indeed students, who have published more opinion pieces/blog articles etc., most of whom also don't warrant a wiki biography. Additionally, she appears to have stopped publishing - her blog is inactive, her twitter is private and she hasn't published academic work or opinion-pieces for some years. She doesn't appear to be working as an archaeologist (or in a relevant/linked field).

Secondly, what there is of her biography reads more like a fluffed up promotional piece. There is absolutely no actual information on her career such as where and when she did her PhD, where she has been employed, what sites she has excavated or worked on - or indeed anything (again) to justify her biography. There is also no relevant or interesting personal information - nothing on childhood, significant relationships, family, achievements - in short, once again, no detail that would support her being significant enough for a wiki bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.172.153.147 (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC) — User: (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTTEMPORARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I completed this AfD for an anonymous editor, the above nomination statement is copied from the article's talk page. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 10:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 10:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 10:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 10:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Although the previous AfD in 2009 was a snow keep, the subject hasn't attracted sustained coverage since. Her book on the Elgin Marbles appears to have prompted a flurry of media appearances, but she hasn't remained in the public eye (with a couple of exceptions: ). Some of the sources alluded to in the last AfD also seem to have disappeared, so I think addressing the content problems raised by the nominator would be difficult. As far as I can tell she doesn't have an academic career so WP:PROF is moot. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTTEMPORARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as additional sources not related to the Elgin marbles book have been provided. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete/ Userfy Subject fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF, and WP:ANYBIO. For anyone that claims the coverage of her passes GNG, I counter that this reportage is about the Elgin Marbles so she would be disqualified under WP:BLP1E. When you take away the stuff she's written there's nothing left to hang notability on. I'd be happy for the closing admin to put this in my userspace as I have a soft spot for historian biographies. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as per WP:HEYMANN. I have added a number of sources to the article, which needs improvement.  However, coverage is hardly limited to a "flurry" at the time her book was published in 2006.  I added a long The Daily Telegraph profile article from 2003.   And several reviews of her book in major media.  As many of the sources say, she is unusual and controversial.  But undeniably notable as can be easily established from the sources now on the page or by searching her name along with keywords like "elgin marbles" and "archaeology".E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * also checked JSTOR and added a brief academic consideration of her argument in a book review of an Ethics book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just added a long New York Times article about her 2001 efforts to block construction of an Olympic facility at the site of the Battle of Marathon. She's been in the news so much and for so many years that's it's hard to unpack all of the controversies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding sources, but don't you think you're slightly overselling them? The only NYT article cited is a page long and mentions King once. As far as I can tell, with the exception of the odd quote and the 2003 Telegraph article, all the sources are still about her book on the Elgin marbles. Perhaps we ought to have an article on the book, but King herself does not meet WP:SUSTAINED. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Are we looking at the same article? This: one, in the Science section?  I suppose "long," is relative, but it's a pretty detailed article. And, at 1,000 words, pretty long. Certainly a WP:RS supporting notability.  Moreover, I do not pretend to have sought, found, or sourced the article with every significant article about her.   In my experience, when a quick search turns up this much material, there is almost certainly more out there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. It includes a single quote from King, which I wouldn't describe as significant coverage... –&#8239;Joe (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That quote, for editors without Times access "But Dr. Dorothy King, who recently earned her doctorate in archaeology from the University of Oxford and is a leader of the opposition, emphasized the intangibles of the issue. 'The importance of the site is as much in its symbolism -- it would be the equivalent of putting a theme park in the middle of the site of the Battle of Gettysburg.'"E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As predicted, a quick search on Proquest news archives (which never finds everything that is out there; no single search engine does) on "Dorothy King" +  Marathon + Olympics turned up not only the NYTimes and The Daily Telegraph articles already added to the page, but also:
 * Miss Indiana Jones digs up a whole new take on history. The Observer [London (UK)] 16 Nov 2003
 * Marathon game of Marbles, Daily Mail [London (UK)] 30 Apr 2003: 17.
 * Marathon protest Londoner's diary: Evening Standard [London (UK)] 20 Mar 2001: 12.
 * These 5 articles were picked up in British papers and in newspapers across the world. I'm sure there were more, not to mention articles about her/this in German, Greek and other languages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you actually checked that these ones include non-trivial mentions of King? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. Be my guest.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The NYT piece has one sentence: "But Dr. Dorothy King, who recently earned her doctorate in archaeology from the University of Oxford and is a leader of the opposition, emphasized the intangibles of the issue.". Everything else added (except maybe for the Observer piece I can't access) is about Elgin marbles. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Kindly read the titles I gave above. The articles from The Observer, the Evening Standard and the Daily Mail are about the protests over building an Olympic Games facility on part of the site of the Batle of Marathon, they date  from 2003 and from the titles alone title you can see what they are about.  The one in The Observer is a long profile article of here.  The one in The Observer is a full profile of King.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I am without ProQuest. The Observer piece may change my mind but the rest are still marbles stories. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Rules violation'? Looking back at the previous AFD, (many iVotes, SNOW KEEP,) I am wondering about the propriety of a deletion discussion about a conspicuously controversial figure started by an IP who is a SPA with a total of 2 edits, the tag on the page itself and the edit  at this discussion.  I suggest that we close this immediately as a procedural keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have a policy to back up that assertion? I'm pretty sure we're not closing a discussion just because you don't like it. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The previous AfD was eight years ago. Anonymous editors are allowed to nominate articles for deletion just like anyone else. This is, after all, the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do think that it is problematic for an SPA to be allowed to nominate a long-standing article for deletion, especially when the subject is highly controversial, and  when the reasons for deletion are that the Subject hasn't published recently, that other writers are better known, that the article does not contain enough information about her childhood, and that it does not say where she earned her PhD.  btw, I dsourced her Oxford PhD to the NYTimes and added it to the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Abusing the word problematic should result in you going to bed without supper. Adding sources and making a claim for GNG and HEYMANN is fine. Suggesting that your opinion should cause the discussion to end is laughable. I don't know how you think you can edit here with that attitude. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It is fine for you too clean up the article, insert better sources, and reword as per sources. Heaven knows the article has been need of a good.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC) I apologize for that snark.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note Also this: BBC interview, published in anticipation of the publication of the 2006 book on the Elgin marbles. A WP:RS that supports notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Biographical details now added to article, sourced to Smith, David (16 November 2003). "Miss Indiana Jones digs up a whole new take on history". The Observer and Jardine, Cassandra (12 April 2003). "My battle of Marathon". The Daily Telegraph.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh lord some of these articles are bad. "One of the last bastions of male dominance"? Archaeology is one of the most equal disciplines in British academia! "I get called the female Indiana Jones"? Please, who doesn't? It's seriously worrying how many of these profiles seem to just be parroting King's own self-promotionalism. Were the documentaries mentioned ever produced? She has evidently not become archaeology's Nigella Lawson or Simon Schama, has only written one book (ten years ago), and as far as I can tell hasn't otherwise worked in archaeology since; so in retrospect can we really consider these puff "profiles" reliable? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Her book however The Elgin Marbles (book), was widely reviewed across the Anglosphere, excoriated in the Greek press, and can certainly support a stand-alone article. We cannot, however, merge to the book because there are profiles of her and long interviews with her in major newspapers, at least one of which, Smith, David (16 November 2003). "Miss Indiana Jones digs up a whole new take on history". The Observer, dates years before the book was announced and is about a controversy involving the archaeological site of the Battle of Marathon.  The Elgin Marbles book (several reviews already in the article, does support notability.  Certainly the articles that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC) I have now BLUELINKED her book, The Elgin Marbles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Our notability guidelines recommend populist criteria and so it is unreasonable to delete articles that use such an approach. Thincat (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Given coverage of her work in 2003, 2005, and 2006, she seems to have received sustained coverage as an archaeologist-activists, and thus be notable. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:GNG criteria met. Thanks for your work . Hmlarson (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Once notable, a person is always notable, even if they become inactive, retire, or die. The article was kept by a wide consensus in 2009. The article has been improved considerably lately. Even assuming good faith, I always wonder what conflict of interest or agenda an IP editor from an unregistered IP might have, since they don't or can't disclose any interest, which especially is true when they have made few or no edits outside of this particular AfD and the subject itself is controversial. Wikipedia is not censored and should not be. One last thought: I am particularly wary about deleting articles about controversial females, considering the recent past. Bearian (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article makes a clear case for WP:GNG notability, and a news search reveals that she is widely quoted as an expert in other newspaper stories not included here (e.g. a cluster of stories in late 2014 about discoveries in Amphipolis). As well as GNG, I think she passes WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment -- While the article is now adequately sourced, I have grave doubts as to her notability, which depends on one book and being an activist. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not "being an activist" that marks King as WP:NOTABLE, it is having the BBC, The Daily Telegraph, The Observer and other major media publish and broadcast articles about her activism. She is, of course, active in favor of causes that make some other activists hate her.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep She and her book have received substantial coverage, as E.M.Gregory has pointed out. More recent  coverage by a Greek news site can also be found here: https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=protothema+dorothy+king&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8


 * 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.