Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Anderson (computer scientist)

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 ideas not being accepted by the scientific community is not a notability criteria of person. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 01:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Anderson (computer scientist)

His theories are not accepted by the scientific community and are just another version of NaN. Petter (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Anderson (mathematician), result: no consensus. --Salix alba (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (my nomination) see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Anderson (mathematician) Petter (talk) 05:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He appears to be a crackpot, but he's been on TV. Herostratus (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which TV? Are we talking here of local, regional or national TV? Is this solely in the UK, or does anybody else in the world know about this person? Thanks --euyyn (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There's been enough media attention to justify keeping it. He was featured on Slashdot and elsewhere as well as mainstream media like the BBC. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

week keep some press coverage. After reading this blog post I'm beginning to see a bit of sense in what he's doing, yes transreals do largely duplicate NaN, however if your building a machine made of a large number of custom made chips it may prove easier to design the chips following the transreal scheme that having to implement the full IEEE NaN specification. --Salix alba (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not us to judge; we must rely on secondary sources. --euyyn (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep meets WP:BIO. The fact that his ideas are not accepted by the scientific community is not relevant to his notability. . JoshuaZ (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A clear fail of WP:PROF — too little evidence that anyone takes his ideas seriously — but the popular press attention he's received is enough for WP:BIO, I think. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2008 (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.