Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joy Lim Arthur

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. Withdrawn Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Lim Arthur[edit]

[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)

I'm not seeing notability here- the best coverage towards GNG is FN #5 in the article, other sourcing includes colleges covering their alumni ([1], [2]), induction into the HOF of a region where she worked -- not independent, and not significant enough to lend notability by itself-- an article in a newsletter ([3]) and a research and development award which doesn't seem to be all that significant. Recipient of the National Medal of Science is currently tagged as dubious and there's no mention of her on our page of the laureates, so it seems somewhat unlikely. So in summation, there just isn't enough independent coverage here to establish GNG and none of the awards are significant enough to lend notability (via ANYBIO) by themselves. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The National Medal of Science thing is very strange. I wonder if it is a typo or maybe a different National Medal of Science, because I don't see an accredited university blatantly lying about someone's accomplishments on their website. Anyway, even without the medal, there is still enough coverage of her for notability. LeBron4 (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There is a non-trivial in-depth article about her (and her husband) from the Las Cruces Sun-News here, multiple pages, which is an independent reliable source. It would be better if we had a second like that, of course, but that plus the half dozen assorted awards, plus the half dozen sources that are not independent of her - but are independent of each other - are probably enough for WP:GNG. --GRuban (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Full disclosure; I started this page (albeit two years ago). I agree (GRuban), it would be excellent to have an additional independent source for the medal but I could not and cannot find one. I believe there is just enough to warrant a page.Jesswade88 (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's significant in-depth reliable coverage of her over a wide range of years. There's no reasonable argument that she does not pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein Because WP:GNG specifically calls for independent sources-- of which there is just one (1) providing significant coverage (independent of universities and places she's affiliated with). What part of that strikes you as unreasonable? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891 Just in the article, we have in-depth information from the White Sands Missile Range Museum (not an organization she worked for), from the Las Cruces Sun-News (an independent newspaper), from Missile Ranger (a publication she did not work for), and from the Army RD & A Bulletin (another publication she did not work for). Some of those sources are affiliated with the US Army, a huge organization, but are in separate enough parts of the Army that I think that considering them as non-independent would be as absurd as considering sources from the major newspapers of small countries to be non-independent coverage of events and people in those countries. More, as nominator you are supposed to do WP:BEFORE, considering the sources that can be found elsewhere than just by a superficial reading of the article, and that also includes the Alamagordo News [4], Albuquerque Journal [5], and Wayne State University library [6]. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked we didn't consider a community newsletter particularly indicative of notability or even reliable, the white sands coverage is from the organization that she specifically worked for in the army, though you're right that she didn't work for the museum. However, it's rather hard to consider her independent from the museum given the fact that she donated $300,000 to it. The Army RD & A Bulletin is very much a passing mention. Similarly, the Albuquerque journal article you link literally just says so far he has found eight, all in Albuquerque except Mrs. Joy L. Arthur-- a passing mention if I've ever seen it. The Alamogordo Daily News is a publication with a circulation of 6,000, not what I would consider indicative of notability. Additionally, it is pretty much just a re-print of the Missile Range Museum entry, so it shouldn't count as another source. and the Wayne State link, yet again, isn't sigcov. I found and considered most of those sources (though I missed the Alamogordo article) , but I didn't think it was quite enough to meet GNG, though it's certainly not a case of "clearly non notable" either) -- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: Please tell me where in WP:GNG you find any hint that the circulation of a newspaper is relevant for its coverage. You appear to think that WP:GNG should be about significance, when it is only actually about the existence of reference material suitable to make an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't weight a full-length, bylined article in The New York Times the same as an article in the Alamogordo Daily News when considering notability, or at least we shouldn't. It's not specifically stated in GNG that I've found, but it just makes sense-- take the most recent obituary the Alagordo News published for Ben Artiaga Jr.. Would you argue that their covering his death makes a man best known for his sense of humour and green thumb notable? I'd argue certainly not (though of course he seems like a wonderful person). Additionally, the article provides little substantive coverage of her, choosing instead to republish their write-ups for their induction to the hall of fame as the bulk of its content, a source that we've already cited in the article. I added this above, but I'll reiterate because you may not have seen it-- I struggle to see how you consider her independent of the White Sands Missile Range Museum given that she donated $300,000 to it. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that we should re-work GNG to be about significance of the sources the subject was covered in, rather than about the depth, reliability, or independence of coverage, go ahead — I prefer significance-based criteria like WP:PROF myself. But that's not what it is now, and "it just makes sense" is hardly convincing reasoning for going against the clear wording of the guidelines. As for local obituaries, usually they are paid (so not independent) and even if not they would generally fall under the part of GNG talking about coverage of routine events. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see the difference between that likely paid for obituary and the news article, which shows every indication of being little more than a glorified press release — Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You think that larger-circulation newspapers are more likely to rely on their own writers and less likely to be susceptible to press-release churnalism? Really?? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein Absolutely, because they can afford to, mainly. If you look at the article you cite, it's written by Jim Eckles, who was a public affairs worker for the missile range, which suggests to me that they weren't relying on their own writers. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The" article I cite. As if you're still trying to pretend there was only one. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've already addressed why I don't feel all the other articles you present are adequate to establish notability. I don't feel the need to reiterate the same points over and over, though I'd be more than happy to if you can't see what I'm saying. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources as I see them-- could you explain what I'm missing? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://engineering.purdue.edu/ECE/Alums/OECE/2008/jarthur.html	the university she graduated from			✘ No
http://wsmrhistoric.com/files/1981%20Missile%20Ranger%20V33%20Issue%2016.pdf	The missile range she worked at	a community newsletter		✘ No
http://www.wsmr-history.org/HallOfFame1.htm	The hall of fame of the missile range she worked at, the museum she donated money to			✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/35323563/				✔ Yes
https://books.google.com/books?id=YKIrAAAAYAAJ&q=Joy+L+Arthur&pg=RA3-PA17#v=snippet&q=Joy%20L%20Arthur&f=false			passing mention of her recieving a nn award	✘ No
http://www.tributes.com/obituary/show/Joy-L.-Arthur-102658989	likely paid for obit	?	very short	✘ No
http://ece3.nmsu.edu/ECEAcademy_Joy_Arthur.htm	the university she graduated from			✘ No
https://www.alamogordonews.com/story/news/local/community/2016/02/06/paul-and-joy-arthur-make-final-grand-contribution-wsmr/79947158/	written by a pr worker of the missile range she worked at, essentially thanking her for donating a lot of money			✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/156590776/			passing mention	✘ No
https://reuther.wayne.edu/node/1453			37 words of coverage	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I have already addressed why material from different parts of the army than the parts she directly worked in should count as independent. The donation to the museum was 11 years after she was inducted into their hall of fame; did it involve time travel going back to the past so she could tell them it would taint their choice? Or why are you listing the donation there as if it were somehow meaningful. Also, I think the people at Purdue who gave her the alumni award are entirely different from the people at Purdue when she was a student there; if we were using a significance-based notability criterion, we could reasonably argue that the small pool of alumni makes selection as an awardee not especially significant, but again, since you keep not hearing it, we are not judging significance in this evaluation, and I think its independence from the subject is completely adequate. (The NMSU coverage is different because that specifically is about a donation to NMSU, which is why I didn't include it in my earlier comment listing good sources.) And your summary of a captioned photo as "37 words" seems...to avoid imputing motives to you, let's just say, incomplete. Anyway, here's another piece coverage for you to add: Army Research & Development Newsmagazine 1970 —David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That actually... makes sense. Sorry to have been such a bother. Withdrawn Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The National Medal of Science thing is odd; I'm guessing it was a clerical error on New Mexico State University's part, maybe mixing up one award name with another. That aside, it looks like we have a GNG pass. XOR'easter (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think we have enough here to pass WP:GNG Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because it passes GNG. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:49, 4 January 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.