Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunter S. Jones


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  15:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hunter S. Jones

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

After looking through the sources on this page I have found that they do not indicate notability of this author is probably the best argument for notability and it is a single article in a news organization, this citation is actually the first 2 in the list. The next citation is a passing reference in an online magazine, that is run by the Historical Writers' Association, an online forum of Historical Writers.

Next we have an article by Jones in the same online magazine, there is no indication this receive any 2nd party review or reference. We then have Past Preservers looks more like an agent for "experts" to get gigs. The next citation is from youtube. Then we have another article by Hunter Jones, where most of the articles published on the site come from an open submissions process.

The next citation is from hunterjones.com website. Them give me a File or directory notice error, again from a local newpaper. The next source gives me a 404 Not Found Error. Then there is another article written by Hunter.

The next citation is probably the second best argument for notability and that is Current Fellows and Members, as I do not know what it takes to be a Fellow or a member in the Royal Historical Society I will let others determine if that provides enough notability to be included. Next the Articel Cites The Society of Authors and lists Hunter Jones as a member. This is a trade union that essentially anyone can join.

Next we have a list of winners of a non-notable award. Then we have an online book publishing company.

We then come to our last citation that is worth any note and again it is from a Local news source a short article on a book signing. The last two citations only direct you to places where you can buy her books. Based on my analysis I do not see how this individual meets the notability standards of Wikipedia. VViking Talk Edits 15:09, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * +++Historia Magazine is an accredited magazine with an ISSN number. The Historical Writer Association is a highly esteemed group of best selling authors who are accepted based on valid, actual selling criteria.+++
 * +++The Dangerous Women Project was a highly curated, global project lead by Scotland's University of Edinburgh+++
 * ===The Society of Authors was found by Alfred, Lord Tennyson. This is not a 'trade union' that just anyone can join--this is a selective group with an historic pedigree. A Board of Directors must vote on admission to the group based on the individual's achievements as an author.===
 * ===MadeGlobal Publishing's author Claire Ridway has a Wiki page based on her work with MadeGlobal. What's the difference? Why are you bullying Ms. Jones when she has more valid sales and academic achievements?+++
 * ===Valid citations from newspapers, magazines, the academic community, along with an official Facebook page, and Wikimedia project inclusions make me vote to leave the page as as noteworthy.=== — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCC1930 (talk • contribs) 28 December 2017 (UTC) . Moved from inline response and signature marked by


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 15:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 15:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 15:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 15:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 15:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. I do not see how she meets GNG or WP:AUTHOR (which seems to be her main thing, she also has a imdb entry - imdb) - definitely not with the sources in the article, and not with what I see in a BEFORE. This might be a WP:TOOSOON - as it seems she is releasing/appearing at a fairly high pace.Icewhiz (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The claim of being a "best-selling" author would seem to be questioned by the fact that her main work, September Ends, is not held by any libraries, according to WorldCat. Taken with the SPA history, this is almost certainly a vanity page. Please excuse some end-of-the-year venting of frustration, but WP's agenda of "inclusion", etc., is taking it toward being a worldwide directory of all of humanity. The slow and manual process of AfD & PROD will be losing ground faster and faster as time goes on. Agricola44 (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * <===The University of Edinburgh's article states that she is a Romance Writers of America (PAN member). To become a PAN member of that group, an author must submit via a publisher that they have sold over 5000 copies of a book within a small time span. With the article being published in 2016, that information would've been supplied by MadeGlobal Publishing due to sales of her Anne Boleyn story, Phoenix Rising. Definitive proof of the best seller claim. RWA (PAN) membership is a highly respected and widely recognized accolade.Likewise, Rivendell Writers Colony is has a merit based membership and is hishly exclusive === — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCC1930 (talk • contribs) 28 December 2017 (UTC) . Indented and signature marked by
 * Comment. You appear to have little appreciation for the notability requirements. What you say may be true, but it doesn't have demonstrated reliability. So, for example, the WorldCat entry for Phoenix Rising shows that it is held by precisely 2 institutions. The context in which you throw around the label "best selling author" is not what that term is understood to mean here at WP. This person is not even close to being notable by standard criteria. Sorry. Agricola44 (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: There have been irregular actions including at least one instance of socking on the page. And despite that activity and repeated requests/advice, direct evidence has yet to be identified that one or more of her works actually meet WP:NBOOK. The less direct proofs and sources against WP:NAUTHOR haven't stood up to scrutiny. Neither Society of Authors nor RHS memberships provide any evidence of notability. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 00:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete: Notability is borderline at best, and with all the other issues of promotional stuff, socking, etc., I don't see a good justification to keep. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  03:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Very dubious -- Neither society membership points to notability. A fellowship of Roy Hist Soc might.  Contributing to an academic project at University of Edinburgh is not enough either.  I do not know any of her books and thus cannot judge their merit.  FRom the article, I am not clear how far she is writing history and how far historical novels.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NBIO. Found no independent reliable sources that cover her in-depth as a writer. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.