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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew McIntosh (professor)

[edit]

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

This article is basically a WP:COATRACK off the back of WP:BLP1E. The subject is a creationist, admittedly a rare breed in the United Kingdom. The sole claim to actual notability is nothing to do with the majority of the article, but is a minor award given to the group he leads. The cited source discussing this, namechecks him in the final sentence. His principal claim to fame is being a director of "Truth" in Science, a fringe and very very minor creationist group which his institution firmly repudiates, and he is the only one of the people listed in the article on that group for whom we have an article. Guy (Help!) 00:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He certainly isn't famous for WP:PROF standards that I can see. The argument that he is notable for his peculiar religious claims may be stronger, but I don't think such an argument is particularly compelling per WP:BLPFRINGE. jps (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I am more hesitant than usual to !vote this way, as he appears to have gained some attention from the news media. However, I don't think this coverage passes the WP:PROF criteria, and is not extensive enough to get him past WP:GNG. If McIntosh receives further news coverage in future years, I can see him passing the notability threshold, but not now. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think, under WP:PROF Criterion 5 - a professor in the UK is pretty much automatically notable. Also, creationists in this sort of position in the UK are so rare that that on its own is probably good enough. Eustachiusz (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:PROF criterion 5 as his professorship is not significant or notable. It is certainly not true that any UK professor is notable. Religious minorities are not per se notable. The one important thing, the award his team received, is not specific to him and not a scholarly prize, but from Times Higher Education. Thus he fails WP:BLP1E as well. BethNaught (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to get plenty of coverage for his views from the British Centre for Science Education, Dawkins, the BBC, &c. Andrew (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fact that he is English, and there are not many English creationists, is hardly a claim to fame. I find that argument absurd. On a global scale, he is a fourth or fifth tier creationist, very far from a leading figure in the movement, except perhaps on a limited local scale, which would be all the more insignificant as creationism is a tiny movement in England. Not enough in the way of substantial feature coverage for his activities as a creationist in reliable independent secondary sources. As far as his career as a professor goes, it looks solid, but rather run of the mill. Rather unspectacular, in fact, with minimal coverage in news sources, largely limited to a single rather unspectacular award from a non-scientific body, of which he was not the sole recipient. Therefore fails both WP:PROF and WP:BLP1E. I find the argument that "a professor in the UK is pretty much automatically notable" absurd as well. That is not in accordance with WP:PROF or any other guidelines. Nothing worth saving here or merging elsewhere. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 101.117.56.15 (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 101.117.56.15 (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:PROF#C1 with an h-index of at least 20 (searching for "AC McIntosh" and manually removing the papers that are not his). The article should probably be reworded to focus more on his mainstream engineering work. -- 101.117.56.15 (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Those editors saying "a professor in the UK is pretty much automatically notable" are appealing to WP:PROF#C5. In the UK, an ordinary "professor" is called a "lecturer" or "senior lecturer," and the "Professor" title is reserved for what in the US would be called "Distinguished Professor" or "Head of Department." Therefore, they are suggesting, WP:PROF#C5 apples. -- 101.117.56.15 (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is a top-tier leader of the creationist movement, as you can see from Answers in Genesis. He has six mentions in the Highbeam news archive and 19 on GBooks. He is "the leading scientific proponent of IDT in the UK," according to Science vs. Religion by Steven Fuller. Guelf (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A web of science h-index of at least 17 just gives a pass of WP:Prof#C1 in the relatively low cited field of combustion science. His religious activities pass WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Xxanthippe et al. St Anselm (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep Sufficiently notable to just pass WP:PROF without the creationism. It's debatable whether a genuine orthodox scientist in his own field being a creationist makes them more notable, but it might. DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 4 May 2014 (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.