Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Pharaoh Francis (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 水 10:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Diana Pharaoh Francis
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I recognize that this will be controversial, as I guess all 2nd noms are. No new coverage (that I can find). Article sourced almost exclusively to book listings, not secondary sources. The one other source is a book review. Subject seems to be a prolific author (250 books is nothing to sneeze at) but no indication that she is at all a notable one. Fails GNG as well as NAUTHOR Hydromania (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can't believe I conflated the numbers I read. She has less than 20 books and a couple short stories. Hydromania (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Published much, noted little (that I can find). Xxanthippe (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC).
 *  Weak Keep While I haven't found a huge number of reviews, there are multiple reviews of two of her novels, Path of Fate (in SF Site Featured Reviews, Voice of Youth Advocates, Booklist and the  Kliatt Young Adult Paperback Book Guide) and The Cipher (in a lengthy review/profile in The Montana Standard, a substantial review in Press and Sun-Bulletin, and (again) Booklist (whose reviewer seems to have read and reviewed most of Francis' novels!)). I also find a search result in Genreflecting: A Guide to Popular Reading Interests, 8th Edition (2019), but I can only see the index page on the Google Books preview, not the page she appears on. I would say that this meets WP:NAUTHOR "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * PS: I removed all the references to her own works, so it's now much easier to see which are reviews. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. I added five more (unfortunately offline) published reviews. I think there's enough here for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the above, I think there's enough here in the way of reviews to meet WP:AUTHOR. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Thank you David Eppstein for adding additional sources. The ones in this article look better to me than the ones in her biography on encyclopedia.com, however that includes visions2004. it appears she also is involved in literature criticism for her academic work, a chapter in Sci-Fi, imperialism and the third world. . Fred (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Changing Weak Keep to Keep based on the additional reviews added by David Eppstein. (I also found the academic articles she has written, but they do not appear to be cited much, so I didn't think it worth including them.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:56, 26 September 2019 (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.