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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dorris Francis[edit]

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

Contested PROD. While the sources present do provide information on this woman (4 is in a language I can't read and 5 didn't want to load for me, but I'm sure they're similar), this is in the vein of "human interest" coverage as I read it, the sort of "cat-up-a-tree" stuff that can show up on a slow news day and get circulated for that reason. I don't see the sort of coverage which would normally equate to notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Extensive coverage by reliable newspapers for some time. A7 arguments do not apply when there is reliable coverage. Dorris Francis is not a OTP(One time Phenomenon) as suggested by the author the sources cover her at different times of here life, some cover her before her illness some after she was diagnosed. This is actually an aborted project of mine (Making articles on these unusual people) which I intend to get back to once a the new batch of Padma awards are given out on 26 January — Force Radical∞ ( Talk ⋯ Contribs ) 04:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BigHaz-I didn't contest your prod, I was planning to contest your nomination tomorrow morning when I would have got some time off, but today I see that you seem to have already read my mind

— Force Radical∞ ( Talk ⋯ Contribs ) 04:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't contest it (and apologies if you'd got the impression that I was accusing you of having done so - not that contesting a PROD is something to be "accused of", but you get my meaning I hope...). The contestation came from another quarter entirely, and possibly for quite another reason. As a response to your point about the coverage, I see what you mean about the coverage at different points in her life, but that can still occur with the human-interest subjects - at least in news coverage in Australia there's a genre of report which runs "You know that hero truck driver who saved the kid from the burning house? Well, now his son has been caught speeding", and so on. If she winds up included in a Padma award list, that would seem to change things from what I can see. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete human interist stories from the news media are not the thinks notable coverage to pass GNG is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage yes. Notable, no. She's a traffic crossing guard?198.58.168.40 (talk) 06:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Human interest stories become news and when they do, the subject passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a human interest piece that fails NOTNEWS. The GNG is only a guideline that is rebuttable presumption (click the WikiLink in WP:N and look at the endless talk page discussions there going back years on this subject). Whether or not this article passes the GNG is irrelevant to whether we should keep it per our guidelines. The GNG is not an absolute right for inclusion, consensus is policy and common sense must prevail. Depth of coverage does not only refer to the amount of coverage in a piece, but also the level of critical journalistic analysis. We don't have that here. This fails both points of WP:N, it is excluded by WP:NOT as routine news coverage, and it also lacks the depth of coverage we would expect under the GNG. Even if it meets the GNG, we are free to decide by consensus that it does not warrant an article because of the nature of the coverage: that has been the long established consensus at WP:N, and it must be considered here. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2018 (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.