Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane MacArthur

Jane MacArthur

[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)

Nomination: Notability questioned. 3 of the sources are from own site. Promotional? ash (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So what? We might say that these citations are WP:PRIMARY, and so do not count towards WP:N. But that's not an issue, there are plenty of other WP:RS here as well. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You seem to be cherry picking. I questioned her notability, period. The article discloses that she studied, she is the member of a few councils, she watched a space launch, she won a social media competition, and she may or may not write for a small magazine. How is this notable ash (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So now you're changing the nomination? It's about you not seeing the WP:RS sources as adequate weight, rather than you wanting to discount the other primary sources. Any other nominations you're planning to use later? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, can I? Would you mind terribly if I bolded the first sentence? Or if I put a semi-colon instead of a full-stop after the word "site"? ash (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes WP:NACADEMIC. The subject is a fellow of a major scholarly society (elected in 2012 to the Royal Astronomical Society, per this announcement ) which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor. Best, Bridget (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NACADEMIC criteria are clear and undisputable. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~There is no evidence that she is an FRAS, the source cited above is about Ian Ridpath, not her. If you check her page you will see no mention of it.~~ She may have been elected to the board, but the source provided does not verify that. No indications of anything close to a pass of WP:NPROF, plus lots of problems. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum after checking the sources, many if the claims in the article are not verified by the sources provided. For instance the claim of election to the RAS council is sourced to the organization webpage which has no such statement. No sources for her education and more unverified claims which I did not see on her web page. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954: You are wrong – the source above isn't just about Ridpath. Her election (among others) is mentioned on that page in the "New Fellows" section: "The following were put forward for election as Fellows of the Society on 12 October 2012...". Bridget (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong, edited.

However, according to both Royal Astronomical Society and what is on the society webpage a "Fellow" is just another name for "Member" for which students can apply. For WP:NPROF we only consider "Fellow" when these are, to quote, a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor such as for APS, MRS, FRS etc. Hence FRAS does not pass WP:NPROF#C3. My vote remains Strong Delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably WP:TOOSOON. I have not found any coverage that would meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC, and as Ldm1954 has pointed out, being a "fellow" of the Royal Astronomical Society is the same as being a member, and does not meet WP:NPROF#C3. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I completely agree with what Ldm1954 has said. I don't believe that being a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society can be compared with being a Fellow of, for example, the Royal Society. Someone with specific knowledge of the Royal Astronomical Society can correct me, if necessary, but I suspect that being a Fellow just means that one satisfies some minimal qualification and has paid one's dues. Elizabeth MacArthur may become notable in the future but she's nowhere near being notable at present as her publication and citation record is very modest. Athel cb (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]