Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iain 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. A rough consensus developed that, although much of the sourcing in the article currently is insufficient to show notabilty, there are sufficient reliable sources (particularly the independently written books) to keep the article. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  06:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Iain King

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I found this with a WP:PROD template, but, as a recreated article, it is ineligible for that deletion procedure. The reason given in the deletion proposal was "I'm unable to find any independent, reliable references about him. Without good references per WP:SOURCES, the article cannot remain." I agree with that rationale. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Weak keep (I'd !vote "neutral" if that was an option) - see below. He is indeed mentioned in the reference provided in the article, and it seems a sound enough source. However, I couldn't find any others, and without other sources evidence of notability is a bit lacking. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 09:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. King's work is becoming increasing well known in some philosophy departments and easily meets Wikipedia criteria for retention.Chriscook54321 (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 17:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 17:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete No verifiable reference goes into any detail about him. Refs are just some quotes, his books and backing up facts like he was a Cambridge fellow. Bgwhite (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep It is my opinion that this easily meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for writers/authors, for 'multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.' First, there are two detailed pages analysing Iain King's ideas critically in Geoff Crocker's 2010 book available and verifiable here[].  Second, there are two pages about Iain King in Roman Kzrnaric's 2012 book, available and verifiable here, published by Pan Macmillan, a large and much respected publisher.  All indications are that these are independent sources - they are also extensive (should the main article quote from them some more?).  Then there is the Liberal Democrat element: Chriscook54321 cites a Liberal Democrat news piece which suggests he has influenced the junior partner in the UK's coalition Government, which must indicate significance.  That newspaper does not seem to be online, so I cannot verify it.  But it is quoted on the publisher's website, and the publisher is a division of Bloomsbury, who are large and highly-respected, so the assertion must be credible.  Then there are shorter references in Gary Cox's 2010 book, verifiable here [], a CNN interview, verifiable here [], and several other references, such as to American Universities now provided in the article.  Surely the Wikipedia criteria are met, and this article is informative and useful. Felixthehamster (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixthehamster (talk • contribs) 14:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep -- CNN interview establishes authority on the subject and while all the other references have some problems (too close too author, semi-RS, or short mention) there are enough of them to establish notability as a writer and thinker. (does not pass WP:PROF, but it seems that the GNG is satisfied). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I’ve just added several more references including one from the Sunday Observer, the best-selling English-language newspaper in Sri Lanka, in which Iain King was discussed alongside Aristotle, Kant and Nietzsche.  Obviously, he’s not actually as important as Aristotle, Kant and Nietzsche (nowhere near), but that must definitely make him notable enough for Wikipedia.  If he’d been discussed that way in the best-selling newspaper in the UK or US, I'm sure there’d be no questions about him being notable enough.  (Or does that make him only notable enough for Sri Lanka's Wikipedia? And does this discussion mean Wikipedia is biased towards British and American sources?  Or even subtly racist?  I hope not!)  By the way, chapters from Iain King’s book were also on my philosophy reading list at University, which was for the same course studied by David Cameron, so Iain King’s ideas might be a basic text for Britain’s Prime Minister 25 years from now.  Definitely keep, I think.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ollie Cromwell (talk • contribs) 12:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I see a lot of mentions of him, but I still can't see any significant coverage by sources that are both reliable and independent of King himself, so I'm still not convinced that he passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. Regarding the mention in the Sunday Observer - he was mentioned, yes, but it was only a couple of sentences, and I wouldn't really count that as "significant". If there was just one more really solid source, then I might change my mind, but I'm not quite convinced yet. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 12:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are now at least two books - proper books by respected publishers, one of them quite critical, the other neutral, each of which give two full pages on Iain King. Then also a lengthy CNN interview, and the coverage in Sri Lanka's best selling newspaper is a full paragraph - more than on most of the other philosophers mentioned in the piece, such as Jean Paul Satre.  Surely all four of these sources count as both reliable and independent?  If not, why not? Ollie Cromwell (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * To answer Mr. Stradivarius , who wants (yet) another source, I found this: yet another book with a chapter on Iain King:  I accept it's probably not as reliable as the other sources - it contains chapters on several Fellows of Wolfson College, Cambridge, not just Iain King, and it's either out of print, or a print-on-demand book.  But the fact is the publishers did choose to give Iain King a full chapter and space alongside people like Kiri Te Kanawa (who seems to be the most famous Fellow of Wolfson, Cambridge).  So can we assume the publishers are independent?  Or, like the other books which discuss Iain King, are the publishers automatically considered suspect?  Ollie Cromwell (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to go through all the new sources tonight, but just to comment on the Books LLC source you linked to there - Books LLC originally took that material from Wikipedia, so using it would be circular sourcing. It wouldn't really make sense to source Wikipedia to itself. :) — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The main wikipedia page now has about twenty different sources of varying strengths, lengths and forms - how many sources do there need to be? I ask that genuinely, not rhetorically; there already seem to be more for the Iain King entry than most other biographies on Wikipedia.  The balance of evidence certainly seems to point to 'multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject', which is the criteria for notability Ollie Cromwell (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lots of different references, and many of them. Hairy poker monster (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This article now fairly easily meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:CREATIVE (but not WP:PROF); and I see lots of references added after some of the earlier 'delete' comments (which may no longer apply). So, as long as it starts 'Iain King is a writer', GNG is met and its a definite 'Keep'.Squareanimal (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm still not convinced about the suitability of the new sources. For example, the CNN interview was asking King's opinions on the situation in Kosovo, but it doesn't actually talk about his role in Kosovo or about him in general (save the brief introduction at the start of the programme). The book How to Be a Philosopher doesn't mention King on page 6, and if Google's "search inside this book" is to be believed, it doesn't mention him at all. And the Wordpress source doesn't count as reliable. So I'm going to stick with my previous assessment, unless anyone can find another solid source. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 15:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Mr. Stradivarius here again - I'm using my alternative account. It's getting hard to follow this debate because different sources have been discussed at different times, and the result is looking quite disjointed. So, I'm writing up my thoughts on all the sources systematically, so that everyone can be clear about my position.


 * Liberal Democrat News, page 8, Issue 1034, 6th March 2009
 * I can't access this source to verify the contents, but it is a specialist publication for a political party, and we usually don't give as much weight to specialist sources.
 * King offers a reason to try to do what is right - quote verfied here, bottom of page 1
 * This is from Continuum books - Kings's publisher, and therefore not independent.
 * http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2012/02/05/imp06.asp
 * A good source, but King only receives a mention lasting one sentence. The paragraph is not just about him - to me, it looks like a general statement about one faction of utilitarian philosophers.
 * http://www.experiencefestival.com/wp/article/iain-king-ethics
 * Not a reliable source.
 * For example, see this Drake University (US) Website
 * A catalogue listing - not a reliable source.
 * Including Oxford University's PPE course
 * A footnote.
 * Roman Krznaric, 2012 (2), Published by Pan Macmillan, ISBN 978-1447202288
 * I can't access this to verify the claims. I'm skeptical, however, due to the precedent of the Cox source, where King wasn't mentioned at all.
 * UK Government website, accessed 25th June 2012[2]
 * This is published by King's old army unit, so not independent.
 * Verified on this US University Website
 * Same Drake University source as above.
 * 'Iain King is a Former Fellow of Cambridge University, UK' - verified here3
 * From Continuum books, so not independent.
 * King is described by Crocker as "an erudite academic, a UK Cambridge philosopher and colleague of Simon Blackburn" - taken from Geoff Crocker, 2010, on page 85-86 of ‘An Enlightened Philosophy: Can an Atheist Believe Anything?’, ISBN 978-1846944246
 * This is the best source I saw. I can't read p86 on Google Books, but p85 looks like good coverage. With no other solid sources, I don't think this source is quite enough, however.
 * CNN interview - official transcript of interview, December 2007 accessible on CNN website here4
 * Not significant coverage - see my comment above.
 * http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2012/02/05/imp06.asp
 * Same news article as above.
 * He also found time to write a philosophy book - taken from page 6 of Roman Krznaric, 2012, ISBN 978-1447202288
 * Same as above - I can't access this to verify the claims.
 * Gary Cox, 2010, Page 6 of ISBN 978-1441144782,
 * King doesn't appear to be covered in this book at all.
 * http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-84706-347-2
 * This looks like a PR site for the publishing industry, so not reliable.
 * How to Make Good Decisions and Be Right All the Time, 2008, ISBN 978-1847063472
 * King's book, so not independent.
 * King, 2008
 * Not independent.
 * http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2012/02/05/imp06.asp
 * Same news piece as above.
 * http://ispitphilo.wordpress.com/
 * Not a reliable source.
 * How to Make Good Decisions and Be Right All the Time, 2008, ISBN 978-1847063472
 * King's book, so not independent.
 * Quote from 'Culture Wars - 'Against an Ethical Lifestyle'[5]
 * Written by King, so not independent.
 * Page 85-86 of ‘An Enlightened Philosophy: Can an Atheist Believe Anything?’ by Geoff Crocker, 2010, ISBN 978-1846944246
 * Same source as above.
 * How to Make Good Decisions and Be Right All the Time, 2008, ISBN 978-1847063472
 * King's book, same as above.
 * Gary Cox, 2010, Page 6 of ISBN 978-1441144782, 'How to Be a Philosopher’
 * As above, doesn't seem to mention King at all.
 * Page 85-86 of ‘An Enlightened Philosophy: Can an Atheist Believe Anything?’ by Geoff Crocker, 2010, ISBN 978-1846944246
 * As above.
 * http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-84706-347-2
 * As above.
 * Page 85-86 of ‘An Enlightened Philosophy: Can an Atheist Believe Anything?’ by Geoff Crocker, 2010, ISBN 978-1846944246
 * As above.
 * King offers an anchor of moral certainty - Liberal Democrat News, page 8, Issue 1034, 6th March 2009
 * As above.
 * Quote verified here6
 * From Continuum publishing, so not independent.
 * So, to sum up, the only actual proof of notability that I have seen is Crocker's 2010 book. Also, we still have to verify the Krznaric book. I would like to actually see proof that King has significant coverage in this book, especially as it seems he is not mentioned at all in the Cox 2010 book. I think that the claim to notability is much weaker than some of the editors here have claimed. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  (have a chat) 05:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. For Mr. Stradivarius, to access the book you say you couldn't see, put this into your browser: http://www.amazon.com/Find-Fulfilling-Work-School-Life/dp/1447202287 Then just click on the picture of the cover, then scroll down (instead of typing in a search term).  Extensive references to Iain King come up pretty soon, including the quote.  (Using the same method, I found him discussed in the Crocker book, and mentioned on the inside cover of the Cox book - but I agree, it was only a mention)  The trick is to scroll, not type in a search term.  Also, since he is an author, when CNN describe him as exactly that, then interview him at length, I don't think you can discount it so easily.  Ollie Cromwell (talk) 09:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see the mention in the Cox 2010 book. But that is just a mention of the title of his book on a list of other titles available on Continuum books, and so can't be used for notability. I also found the mention in Krznaric 2012, and it is four large paragraphs, which is usually long enough for notability purposes. I'm still not totally convinced that we should count this towards notability, as he is used as an example of someone who is dissatisfied with his work, rather than being covered as someone interesting in their own right. But the Crocker book shows that he's been noted for his philosophy, and we can use Krznaric 2012 for some biographical details, which should be enough material to write a basic biography. Because of this, I've changed my !vote to "weak keep". I'm not ecstatic about having an article in Wikipedia where the sourcing is this weak, though. By the way, how did you find Iain King in the Cox book on Amazon? That eluded my Google-searching skills. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 10:23, 9 July 2012 (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.