Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Jamieson

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Jamieson

[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)

Article about an educator and writer, not properly referenced as passing our inclusion tests for educators or writers. Three of the four footnotes here aren't doing anything to establish notability: there's the self-published website of the band government of her own community, an archival fonds in which her name appears in primary source organizational records rather than as a subject of published coverage, and a museum exhibition catalogue, none of which are notability-supporting sources, and while there is also one genuinely reliable article about her in a real magazine, getting a person over WP:GNG takes a lot more than that. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a lot more than just one acceptable reliable source. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The Norman reference is truly in-depth, reliable, and independent. I added two more sources, a newspaper clipping by Beaver about naming a school after her and a newspaper story about the school she taught at with a paragraph about her teaching there. They are not as in-depth as Norman but I think their coverage is nontrivial enough to count towards WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per David Eppstein. The reporter, George Beaver also published a book[1] in 1997, with his news articles about the Six Nations. Unfortunately GoogleBooks does not allow preview but a snippet view search shows that the article in question is reprinted on p. 59 there. I think there is enough here for WP:GNG in view of the quality of Alison Norman reference. Nsk92 (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per David Eppstein. Important figure and educator and her work is discussed in a scientific publication. Clearly notable. --hroest 00:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per David Eppstein. Has in-depth sources which can be counted towards for GNG. JaredDaEconomist (talk) 05:09, 18 May 2021 (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.