Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert McQuillin

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 keep. The consensus is on keeping the article. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 13:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McQuillin

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

No signs of this person being notable, per WP:SCHOLAR. Nothing about his research making any significant impact on further research related to his study area. Members of many geological societies, like any geologist in the UK. Almost the entire article is unsourced, including the whole section of Academic Appointments. Mymis (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A few good cites on GS and prominent contribution to geophysics industry. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC),[reply]

Some contribution to societies is not enough and everything related to geophysics industry is unsourced. Mymis (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Holding a senior position in British Geological Survey should be sufficient to make him notable. I suspect sources will be readily available in Who's who. This is not an academic appointment, so that lists of scholarly publications are not to be expected. The article is probably still only a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources in the article proving that he had any senior positions. Mymis (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think deputy director of the BGS is sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source that proves it. Mymis (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't like the absence of in depth coverage in reliable sources, but he seems to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC C3, as he is an elected fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (and that is sourced) and a fellow of the Geological Society of London, both of which seem to be selective enough. Thus, notability is implied. No longer a penguin (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These societies give away "fellow" titles to hundreds of people every year, and they have like 15,000 fellows in total just for the one based in London. And let's say the article is kept, then it means that 90% of information must be removed as it is simply unsourced. I tried to look for any sources, but there are simply none to prove most of the statements. For instance, the article includes the birth date, wife's name and number of kids etc that cannot be found anywhere, suggesting that the article was written by a relative or the person himself. Mymis (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was more reliant on the Royal Society of Edinburgh, which awards ~50 fellows, with 1500 fellows in total, which is consistent with other societies considered as selective. And I am merely addressing notability (the lack of which is a reason for deletion), I am not defending unsourced information. If it has no sources, it should be removed, even if it's a stub left afterwards. No longer a penguin (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has held a number of important positions, academic appointments, written articles and books. Certainly seems notable Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2016 (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.