Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Edward Anderson

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. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] J. Edward Anderson

J. Edward Anderson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Here we have an article on an individual whose notability is - questionable at best. Those sources which do exist appear often to be fallout from the rather bitter fight over personal rapid transit in Minnesota. The number of Google hits for "J. Edward Anderson" is small, under 200 off Wikipedia. The article was startewd by one side in the dispute, and is now being edited by the other, but what we have here is still dominated by that dispute, which in fairness is probably of very little significance to Anderson in his overall career. As an academic, he should be judged by WP:PROF, and I see a serious shortage of evidence that he meets that test. Do we need a battleground on Wikipedia with a living individual in the middle of it? I'd say not. Guy (Help!) 19:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ThuranX 19:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

If J. Edward Anderson is not worthy of an article, then the same can be said of Personal Rapid Transit. I have never found a mention of Dr. Anderson and/or PRT in any other encyclopedia. Please delete them both...Avidor 20:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

So now you are voting delete JE Anderson, not even a week after creating it? What kind game are you playing here, Avidor? I think it's safe to say now that the JE Anderson article was created in bad faith... ATren 20:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I am capable of changing my opinion if I am presented with facts and logic that point to a contrary conclusion and Guy has done exactly that. Dr. Anderson is not worthy of an article in Wikipedia and neither is the unproven concept (PRT) he promoted for nearly 40 years.Avidor 21:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This is some of the most ridiculously immature behavior I've experienced on Wikipedia. I can't believe I wasted my time trying to fix the article at all, as I now see the entire situation was part of Avidor's 'my way or the highway' manipulation. I can no longer AGF regarding Avidor. In the future, Avidor, please make it clear to those of us Wikipedians who just try to improve Wikipedia that we're interfering with your tantrums, and we'll go elsewhere. ThuranX 22:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. The truth is I felt it was important to create a Wikipedia page for J. Edward Anderson because he was cited so much in the Personal Rapid Transit Wikipedia article. I also thought Anderson deserved his own page given the number of times he has appeared in the major media in the past. If I had an idea that the article would be challenged for notability, I would have never written it... Avidor 23:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Through the Wikiglass The idea of judging merit -- especially by appeals to academic standards -- within a circus that deliberately rejects any hierarchy of competence is ... um ... ironic. Knappster 03:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I've put some thought and research into this, and regardless of whether the article creator was acting in good faith, I believe Anderson is notable. He has been at the forefront of PRT research for decades, and is responsible for much (though not all) of the current state of PRT research. He and his invention (Taxi2000) are the subject of several non-trivial news articles ([1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6]) and are mentioned in several others ([7],Time Magazine). I don't think there's a question as to his notability. The article certainly needs to be cleaned up (and this needs to be done with care given the history of this dispute) but I don't see any reason why it should be deleted. ATren 19:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - From what I have seen, in the field of PRT, Anderson is a giant. I disagree entirely with using Google juice as a notability yardstick. I also disagree that Anderson's article should be judged solely according to WP:PROF. That is not where he is most notable. I agree that the article was created in bad faith by someone with an axe to grind. But, now that it is here, and the axe grinder visits only rarely to wreak havoc on anything related to PRT, I suggest the article is maintainable in a neutral tone that the one for PRT could never be. --JJLatWiki 20:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I find it ironic that Avidor created this article, and it was Avidor's herald and defender, JzG, who subsequently nominated it for deletion based on notability, when he defended Avidor's little-known, regional comic strip against nearly the same claim (Alexa rank instead of Google Juice) "citing" ambiguous "newspapers in Chicago", some obscure publication in the "twin cities"[sic], "Funny Pages", and "various anthologies". --JJLatWiki 20:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I almost forgot about this other heralding of Avidor. --JJLatWiki 01:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I am not interested about the history of the nomination but only in the question about the notability of JEA. He's more of an engineer than a scientist, and practical achievements are worth as much as published articles; this is an interesting instance of a prominent figure with major public proposals, but which were never adopted, and is clearly less notable than if they had been. But they've been important in the (non)development of late 20th century public transit, and this is at least as much a political as a technical issue. He has been featured in news articles, the information is verifiable, and that's quite enough. I sometimes try to improve articles if I think they're likely to pass & be worth the effort, and I just did a first round on the very inflated article. I removed the considerable part of the article which was about his friends and supporters; if relevant anywhere, that would be in the article for his project. DGG 04:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Provenance of article and of nomination are not dispositive. Needs a fair amount of stylistic cleanup, though. JamesMLane t c 10:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• patents A few selected patents have been added.DGG 01:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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.