Deletion of Dorothy King (2nd nomination)

Comment: Also this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4624334.stm BBC interview, published in anticipation of the publication of the 2006 book on the Elgin marbles. A  that supports notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: 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 https://www.robtex.com/?ip=131.172.153.147&whois=1 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, Gamergate|considering the recent past
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTTEMPORARY||WP:CCC||WP:HEY||WP:AGF||WP:COI||WP:SOAP||WP:NOTCENSORED)

Comment: as per .  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEYMANN)