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. Stupid nomination. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 06:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Smellie (geologist)[edit]

William Smellie (geologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NACADEMIC. ∯WBG^converse 11:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Does Wikipedia have any policies on how soon an article can be renominate for AfD? It was only 3 days ago that it was first nominated, on the spurious rationale that it was a hoax .... now here we are again. At least we are given a guideline this time, though no explanation for why it fails it .... RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  RebeccaGreen, I fail to see why another AfD, days back, on a frivolous ground shall be grounds to debar this AfD on an entirely different locus. Give me an explanation as to how he passes either. ∯WBG^converse 15:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia appears to have no policy about it, of course it doesn't debar it. Personally, I think there should be a policy limiting the number and timing of AfDs, given the time it takes to assess them adequately and respond. I would prefer not to have had the frivolous nomination either, but again, although WP:BEFORE is expected, there's no process to ensure that a nominator has done it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. On what basis does an FRSE fail WP:NACADEMIC? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The nom has failed to provide a delete rationale that addresses the keep decision arrived at just days ago, particularly the sources identified in it. My personal view is that delete proposals without at least basic evidence of having done WP:BEFORE (it can be as little as "I did WP:BEFORE and found nothing") and which do not provide a basic argument for deletion ("Fails *Insert policy here*" is not enough - you must say how unless it's very obvious) should be strongly discouraged. There is far too much "I want this article gone, please delete it for me"-style AfDing at the moment. FOARP (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Smellie was the curator of the Hunterian Museum and Art Gallery, a major Natural History museum. He's notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that page template is not properly templated, it is NOT linking through to this page. Instead of fixing the template, I recommend that the next editor coming to the page close it as SPEEDY. I have added some sources to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as subject clearly passes WP:NACADEMIC. Probably not a true speedy keep candidate, but the forecast calls for WP:SNOW. Bakazaka (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2018 (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.