Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie Loranger

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Loranger

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Google news comes up with a person in New Zealand. and google books comes up with 1 line mentions. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Spain, Canada, and Cuba. LibStar (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bridget (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar: I've added a good amount of news coverage from Ottawa and Montreal outlets on her career before her ambassadorial roles. Best, Bridget (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: @Bridget: can you list the WP:THREE best sources you added (the ones with the most WP:SIGCOV from obviously WP:IS WP:RS. This always helps. Thanks. // Timothy :: talk 04:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Sure, I would say refs #1, #2, and #3 (the article on the left), with an honorable mention to #5, as seen in the article's current rev. I'm not voting just yet though. Best, Bridget (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources added by User:Bridget are substantial and reliable. Lamona (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Many of the sources are largely interviews but there's enough independent coverage within them and others to at least meet WP:NBASIC. S0091 (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091: Just curious, could you explain how you came to the conclusion that they are "largely interviews"? They seem like intellectually independent news articles that reasonably paraphrase or quote an interview that was done with the subject, routine for this kind of publication. Bridget (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC) (edited 11:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC))[reply]
@Bridget Sure! When I look at sources I discount statements by the subject, so quotes or statements attributed to the subject, like "she says", "according to her", "she explains", etc. Using the first three as examples, the first one the majority of it is quotes or statements attributed to her but contains a good chunk of independent content. The 3rd source is mostly her statements. The 2nd source, the book, is tricky because I don't have access to all the content but a portion is an interview with some extensive quotes and other statements by her. I could also see there's some independent content but I could not tell exactly how much yet thought based on what I could see it's enough to contribute to notability. I then spot checked some other sources but I don't recall which ones. That's how I got to a solid keep with it meeting "at least" NBASIC. S0091 (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2024 (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.