Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Walter Warnes


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  12:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Walter Warnes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable medical doctor and medical lecturer. Seems to have published many articles, almost all as part of a team, but never received coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:NACADEMIC as well as the broader GNG. schetm (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep elected fellowship in the Royal College of Physicians (verifiable here) meets WP:PROF. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The guideline states that a "fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor." is presumed notable. How selective is the honor of being elected FRCP if you can nominate yourself? schetm (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The page doesn't seem to say you can nominate yourself. It does say you can declare your interest in becoming a fellow if you're already a member of the RCP. Even then though you have to be approved by the RCP council. The fellowship itself appears to be considered pretty prestigious. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree that FRCP is a criteria that easily meets NPROF#C3. Noting that IEEE fellows can also be self-nominated and are explicitly mentioned in the policy. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - according to the IEEE Member Grade Elevation page, "The grade of Fellow recognizes unusual distinction in the profession and shall be conferred only by invitation of the Board of Directors…." Per the 'WP IEEE' page, Fellow "cannot be applied for directly by the member". At least try. ogenstein (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Dispute seems somewhat premised on whether FRCP is a sufficiently prestigious position
 * Weak delete. Citations are not high for medicine and FRCP is not that high an honor (the award page says that only three years of consultancy is expected). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:PROF being elected FRCP, self nomination, if indeed thats the case, is irrelevant (otherwise looking forward to the above editors who believe this is an issue leaving their notability concerns on all the talkpages of every Federal/state politician on wikipedia:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more relist, as this is a BLP
 * DELETE - Subject does not meet notability requirements of WP:NACADEMIC. Modest google scholar results. No search results outside of academia. None of the 'keep' arguments offer anything except 'FRCP' but this does not constitute a highly prestigious honour. People who claim that it does should read the RCP page which reads as an application for membership in a club requiring annual fees. Also, 'Candidates will need to […] pay an admission fee in order to accept our award of fellowship.' I am surprised to see it compared to the examples mentioned in ACADEMIC. ogenstein (talk) 01:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm reading the full benefits list.  Apparently you get a free parking space (well, free as part of your £554 annual membership fee) and a magazine, but it doesn't say anything about getting a wikipedia page.  -- RoySmith (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I'm not all that impressed by the RCP fellowship - the RCP has over 3000 fellows, and this page make it sound as if fellowship election is pretty much a rubber stamp. But his Google Scholar citations are fairly good. I think he meets NACACEMIC - barely. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The Royal College of Physicans in 2017 had 17,749 fellows (a majority of its membership). Add to the fact that any consultant with 3 years' seniority is automatically considered for the fellowship, the FRCP doesn't seem to be prestigious enough to justify the retention of the article. Atchom (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Further comment Richard Smith, the former editor of the BMJ, let his membership lapse, which suggests it really isn't that prestigious. See https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2009/11/26/richard-smith-is-expelled-from-the-royal-college-of-physicians/ Atchom (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep for RCP and his achievements in medical research Alex-h (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: Where is the significant coverage? Consistency is important and I see a strong reason to !vote "Delete" or the need for an alternative that would be prove it as a sourcing criteria for inclusion for WP:BLP's. I have somewhat agreed to abide by the relaxed principles of sourcing regarding WP:NPROF and WP:ACADEMICS (primary over secondary and not necessarily independent) but FRCP or RCP fellowship alone as a criteria for meeting those is too thin. These !votes that appear to point to I like it should reflect the better option of WP:IGNORE, as two references and arguments the subject is a RCP fellow, or a member of FRCP, does not provide significant coverage to allow more than a career pseudo biographical article on Wikipedia. The subjects notability regarding his "achievements in medical research" cannot be seen as "significant" without coverage. The criteria of sourcing to provide evidence of notability, especially on a BLP, is certainly more stringent "than a simple name mention" (Medical collection listing from the article) or a Google Scholar listing of his research (also from the article). A listing of a subjects research does not pass any criteria that others find the person notable as provided by sources. This becomes "there a list so he or she surely is notable". The present condition of article sourcing is not a determination for deletion but if the sources are so limited that others cannot find them then there is a reasonable expectation they don't exist. Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball we do provide for WP:HEY circumstances (that include sources) that would allow the also reasonable expectation an article can be expanded. If this article is closed as "Keep" it should be considered it will be on the merit of actual votes (head count) and not the applicable !votes as supported by policies and guidelines that certainly include the more stringent sourcing requirements for BLP's. A source can be acceptable for content yet not provide evidence of notability. Short of the above we possibly need to examine the criteria that of being a RCP fellow or a FRCP, possibly with a RFC, to try to have some consistency on reasoning if the two can replace or be an alternative to notability sourcing. The option of articles on 17,749 "fellows" with scarce to no actual sourcing seems a bit too relaxing and suggests we just forget the sourcing requirements and include everyone.  Otr500 (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2019 (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.