Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T. W. S. Hunt


 * 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; there is consensus that membership in an organization with a low threshold for entry does not confer notability on this subject. bd2412 T 21:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

T. W. S. Hunt

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of any notability for this individual. Appears to be more about advertising for his books. Refs are his own web-site, the publisher of his books and YouTube. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk 13:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  19:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  19:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Fellow Royal Society ofArts has always been considered notable here. Obviously the article needs expansion to show hwhy he received the honour. I don't see this article as the least promotional . His books are barely in fact, inadequately) mentioned.  DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, this is a funny one, usually i would say yep as a fellow of the RSA Hunt meets WP:ANYBIO so thats enough, but (here we go...:)), he has only been a fellow since Sept 2017 from Linkedin, there are about 28,000 fellows, and at the moment wp only has articles on around 320 of them (so lots more to add:)), his books appear to be self published (or could be indie published?), WorldCat doesn't show many libraries with his books ie. Winter with God 1 library, The Way of Faith zero libraries, a gsearch for useble reviews doesn't bring up much ie. Winter with God, The Way of Faith, hopefully a better editor than me can find notable stuff. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * More comment - the RSA website makes it very clear that almost anyone can apply to be a fellow provided they can satisfy one or more fairly low level threshold crteria. This is nothing like some other fellowships such as Fellowship of the Royal Society which is reserved for only the most gifted scientific minds. FRSA, IMHO is not anything close to a measure of notability on Wikipedia.  Velella  Velella Talk  12:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. FRSA does not meet notability requirements. It's an "honour" that one applies for and purchases. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- an early career writer who got his B.Ed in 2015; clearly WP:TOOSOON. I could not find any sources that would help the subject meet WP:AUTHOR, while sources currently listed in the article are not suitable for establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - I think there's been some confusion with the much more selective fellowship of the Royal Society of Literature, which is capped at 500. Blythwood (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with others above that FRSA is not the kind of selective fellowship that brings notability. Article makes no case for WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR; as K.e.c writes, this appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2017 (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.