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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result wasdelete. The consensus is that the subject does not meet thenotability 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^talk02:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC) foranon:[reply]

• No comment as to outcome. –xeno^talk03:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meetWP: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 thelist of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk)00:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in thelist 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 underWP:PROF; he should not be confused withthis Malcolm McCulloch, who is clearly notable under the same requirements. Having said that, the subject could arguably meetWP:BIO, based on thenews coverage he received very recently (2008) for his work related to theEinstein 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.