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. While the controversy surrounding Fane's circumstance may justify coverage elsewhere, there is nothing in the article that establishes her own notability. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 14:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Idonea Fane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable person. Of interested only because of her relations by marriage, so fails WP:NOTINHERITED. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly not notable. I would add that sourced from the Daily Telegraph or not, there ain't no such thing as a 'pauper's funeral'. Presumably it is meant that she received it at public expense, as she received care in her lifetime. In which case she will have had an entirely proper and fitting funeral, but then the DT tends not to approve of things done at the expense of the taxpayer. It suggests a lack of objectivity in the writer. --AJHingston (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - private person with only a coatracked inherited notability assertion. Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2011 (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.