Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Francis

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 non admin closure TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Francis[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For somebody who is allegedly a prominent figure in Canadian journalism, this individual lacks significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. In its current state sources are the subject's own website, blog, and articles. I have been unable to find non-trivial coverage specifically about the subject. Also, it was originally created by a sockpuppet (FWIW). Grsz¹¹ 05:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found plenty of 3d party sources (noted on the talk page) to place this author in the middle of Canadian journalism in the 1980s and 1990s. It deserves WP:BETTER, not deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Vielmetti (talk • contribs)
Keep the subject is clearly notable. Heaps of sites refer to her works as being best sellers- especially "controlling interest" - the authors of this article should try to find some sales figures. heres an example of a story i found on her http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=483a60ac-673e-4103-9415-c29a3bc934d0&k=78266 --Brunk500 (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Front-page national columnist for a national newspaper. The Editor of the Financial Post for many years, and now the Editor-at-Large for the National Post. These are major newspapers. Has had four books on the Globe and Mail best-seller list: the first, Controlling Interest: Who Owns Canada?, was number one on the list for ten weeks in 1978 if my hardcopy source is accurate. One of the country's best-known columnists. This article may be poor because Francis is highly controversial - she is considered to be on the far right of the political spectrum. Extremely notable, however. Edit: also tagging as Canada-related deletion discussion to get more eyes on this. --NellieBly (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —NellieBly (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a well-known journalist and editor, whose article needs to be improved upon. PK T(alk) 19:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News search today (Dec. 18, 2009) returns over 70 articles with the phrase "Diane Francis." Although many of them are undoubtedly being generated by her recent controversial editorial on a global one-child policy (potentially a WP:BLP1E), this combined with 9 published works, editor at a significant publication and contributor at a significant political blog causes her to pass the notability test. The article does need significant improvement.Eastshire (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Based on the sourcing it would be a delete - no significant mentions found in major reliable sources. Right now it just seems to be a storm in the blogosphere. But looking at the facts behind this, she has been the editor of some prominent (if not centrist) publications, published books that sold well, and appeared all over the place. Her recent punditry has created quite a stir but not in the mainstream press. If I were to step back and ask which politics writers should be covered to give the reader an encyclopedic understanding of what is going on, it seems like she would pass that test. Maybe take a step back, give it a little time, and look for sources. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple published works, and a vast body of work in Canada's largest newspapers as a featured contributor and editor. Needs some more sourcing, but this is an easy keep. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no question that article needs improvement, but she's most certainly notable enough for inclusion. And the sockpuppet in question didn't have a record of creating invalid articles; their issue had to do with the insertion of POV interpretations into legitimate articles — so that's not a terribly useful deletion rationale. Keep, maybe even with a bit of WP:SNOW. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.