Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frances Lowater

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 speedy keep. per WP:HEY, in particular w.r.t Ironholds' research. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Lowater

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

I'm obviously not going to get very many Google hits on someone who lived a century ago, but even then the only things I'm finding are a brief bio (which is paraphrased entirely in this page) and her three publications. I'm not seeing anything that implies she was any more than a MILL researcher (i.e. I'm not sure she meets WP:PROF, let alone WP:GNG). Primefac (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She was a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and the London Physical Society, which meets WP:PROF criterion #3, "elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association". (For what it's worth, I know there's more out there about her, but it's in physical sources I don't have access to.) Keilana (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Membership in FRAS is open to anyone (there is no official selection criteria). Previous FRAS members have had their pages deleted, such as Shannon Bohle. Primefac (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which is nice but says nothing about the membership of the London Physical Society, which from looking at it was a pretty distinguished grouping. Ironholds (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmn; so I've done some background reading on this and it seems you're both right and wrong. Yes, Fellowship is now totally arbitrary - but it wasn't always! In fact, historically it required things like internal nomination by a Fellow who would attest to their expertise and work, and then a ballot of the existing Fellows. Historically, like in 1922, when (according to Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society) Lowater was nominated. By Edward Emerson Barnard, whose astronomical credentials were good enough for him to end up with a galaxy named after him. So, yes, FRAS status is meaningless - but it wasn't. Ironholds (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mentioned in this newspaper as being a secretary for Bryn Mawr and a "demonstrator" in physics, this one as being president of the college's Graduate Club. Sam Walton (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And not an independent source, but usable: [1] Sam Walton (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Lowater was a fellow of the RAS (see my comments above), a member of the London Physical Society, and a member of the Royal Institute. (She was also a member of the Illinois State Academy of Science but that's slightly smaller fry). She easily, convincingly passes the WP:PROF criteria. Ironholds (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as promient early woman physicist, passes WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as someone who easily password WP:PROF with their membership in multiple fellowships and the above mentions in the Times of London. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2016 (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.