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. The consensus is that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm McCulloch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Proxy nomination submitted by –xeno ^talk 02:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC) for anon:[reply]

“

IMHO grounds for deletion: Subject of article is apparently not notable per Wikipedia:Notability. Article is an orphan or near-orphan article. Article is an apparent "vanity" article, possibly created by the subject of the article or by a fan of the subject. (Most edits to this article were done by editors who haven't edited any other article.) -- (Update: WP:SPA -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC))[reply] - I'm starting this AfD in good faith - if we arrive at a consensus that this article is in fact merited I'm fine with that. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC) [1][reply]

”

• No comment as to outcome. –xeno ^talk 03:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet WP:BIO for scientists or professors. Non-notable. Drawn Some (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment This one looks borderline to me, and I suspect quite a lot of research would be needed in order to reach a sensible conclusion either way - he's notable, but is he notable enough? There are university heads of department who are not notable (the posts have to be filled, and sometimes no outstanding candidates are available), while occasionally a PhD student publishes something (usually listed as 2nd author, with his / her supervisor getting top billing) genuinelynotable. THe article's main problem is that its style is that of a university web page that's trying to promote the activities of a department or team - and the article appears to have been created by a member of McCulloch's team. --Philcha (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As this does indeed look like it was written by one of his lackeys and they've neglected to mention anything notable it is unlikely there is any.--The very last username (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. The article was created by an SPA, and then massively edited by two other SPAs with no edits other than the article. The subject does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF; he should not be confused with this Malcolm McCulloch, who is clearly notable under the same requirements. Having said that, the subject could arguably meet WP:BIO, based on the news coverage he received very recently (2008) for his work related to the Einstein refrigerator. The problem is that the news items seem to all stem from the same press release, and the reason for the interest is probably the Einstein connection.--Eric Yurken (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Little achievement. Reads like a vanity puff. Not a good advertisement for Christ Church. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2009 (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.