Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Anderson (mathematician)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 No consensus. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Anderson (mathematician)

James Anderson (mathematician) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Relates to the person responsible for today's Nullity coining and the Transreal_number deletion, see that entry/talk page for more details. Also vanity publisher and not suitable for a sourced encyclopedia. Lee-Jon 00:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: Article has been moved to James Anderson (computer scientist), the AfD notice persists there also and links to this discussion. fintler 16:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. He's a staff member in the computer science department at the University of Reading. (He's not a professor.) Maybe somehow somewhere he's got some interesting research, but it sure doesn't seem like it merits an encyclopedia article just yet. So far he seems just to have a bunch of papers in conference proceedings (which, to clear up some confusion, are not reviewed). His list of publications (at his home page and at the University) doesn't list his dissertation; who knows what he's a doctor of. See also the AFD for perspex machine. Lunch 00:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Fifteen minutes of fame (or infamy) doesn't qualify one for an encyclopedia article, IMHO. There are lots of "current events" and "ideas going 'round the internet" that don't merit an encyclopedia article. Lunch 00:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment the term professor has a different meaning in the UK from the USA, so not being a professor does not automatically make a person non-notable. Markb 18:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed, but it does put him one step lower on the ladder.

      Also does anyone know where else in the news this fellow has appeared? That is, besides a one paragraph article in Slashdot and the article in the Berkshire local edition of the BBC. And on Slashdot, virtually all the comments are poking fun of the guy. Lunch 20:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment: He is an "academic staff" member, which seems to be what the department is calling faculty. Conference proceedings are quite common in computer science and are perfectly respectable in some areas; you can't expect to translate your knowledge of credentials from some area of mathematics to a completely different field. Also, as pointed out, making "professor" is actually quite different (and harder) than at an American university; it really is a different kind of position. --C S (Talk) 08:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep... his ideas are going around on the internet and his identity should be explained. - Stoph 00:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As above. --Soyweiser 10:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; one Slashdotted item of minor local news coverage isn't enough for WP:BIO. He has his own web site to explain his identity. --McGeddon 00:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • There is more than one news article, as of today. See the article. Uncle G 13:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete His grants are neither plentiful or notable, his publications are not peer reviewed. This guy does not yet deserve an article. Carboneyes 00:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. -Ahruman 00:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Alternatively, change (mathematician) to (Internet), and delete the redirect. There's no mathematics here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Grandiose claims do not make a person notable. Fails WP:PROF but may pass WP:ICANSQUARETHECIRCLETOO!!!. shotwell 01:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN linas 01:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. TSO1D 02:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, one mention in a news story does not confer notability. WP:PROF is the criterion which should apply here. -- The Anome 02:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep... his ideas are going around on the internet and his identity should be explained. Narssarssuaq 03:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 04:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete as per nom, can't even use the WP:PROF as he doesn't qualify there!SkierRMH,07:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Some journalist just happened to believe he has solved something on the scale of Einstein or Newton. He has not. Any interest in this will go away soon. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, if the interest goes away soon, delete after it has gone away, not before. Nothing worse than not being able to find at all in Wikipedia something that's all over the internet. maidden 11:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non notable. To reply some Keep: Wikipedia is not web space - Cate | Talk 12:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, just the idea that this many people care to delete this article makes it notable, oh, and the media attention ;P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fintler (talk • contribs).
  • Keep The sources make their own argument for notability. Just because he may be known in history as a "one hit wonder" doesn't mean that one hit isn't notable. -Markeer 13:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above. Zé da Silva 14:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete People asking for this to be deleted does not make it notable. This is not worthy of a bio. It may be in the future, but not yet (though I doubt it) JonGUK 14:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. Recent papers published don't seem to be peer reviewed, and one bbc news arcicle does not a notable person make. Inner Earth 15:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Marginal, though in my view over the line, establishment of notability. That he is also a vanity publisher has no bearing on it -- might be noted in criticism section. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable bio stub. Abstrakt 18:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, in the news now, let's wait two years to see if his name has any recognition value Dr Zak 19:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 20:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - "This is all over the internet" is not a reason to keep it here - it seems to me that this is exactly what the original research policy is there to prevent. --Dmz5 04:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to James Anderson (computer scientist), defer deletion depending on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perspex machine and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transreal number. If the other two pages stay then I guess this should as well, but lets call a spade a spade, this guys a computer scientist not a mathematician. --Salix alba (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN --RaiderAspect 13:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Pierreback 14:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - WikiXan 15:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm still in favor of a delete, even if the proposed Wikinews article actually becomes published, and even if Perspex machine and Transreal number are kept, but I would move to amend Salix alba's proposal to "rename, substitute, and excise redirect". He is not and has never been a mathematician, as far as anyone can tell. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. After careful consideration of related backlinks such as transreal number and perspex machine, I voted delete on those articles, from which I have to conclude that Anderson is just not notable (possible merits of his work notwithstanding). So what remains as a reason for keeping this bio? The only thing I can see of is some minor Internet notoriety due to Slashdot (the BBC thing is not so convincing, as it was in a local edition). But being mentioned on Slashdot once is a dubious kind of notoriety. No backlinks (other than the ones I mentioned) exist, so I doubt it's any loss to just delete. --C S (Talk) 09:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename to James Anderson (computer scientist) He is in no way shapre or form a mathematician. His training is in CS. I'd say redirect "Perspex machine" here and keep this article stating that "James Anderson is a math crackpot who asserts that a flawed version of NaN has major mathematical consequences." Alternaticely, create a "Mathematical crackpots" article which talks about the phenomenon and lists several "notable" ones; redirecting all articles to that one. Perspex & Anderson are not notable for scientific merits but they are notable as well know parts of the cultural phenomenon of mathematics crackpotery. JeffBurdges 11:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep marginal and rename to his actual job. not quite notable as a working academic biographical article, not quite notable as a crackpot, but together the two add up to more than nullity. there is a notable lesson here for academia--Mongreilf 13:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete His training isn't even in CS, he's a psychology major. Jgrahamc 17:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • On balance, Delete, largely per The Anome. WMMartin 19:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - if just out of sympathy for him after reading the comments on the BBC article http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2006/12/06/divide_zero_feature.shtml? There 98% of the comments demonstrated beyond doubt the writer had neither read Anderson’s paper, nor had the slightest clue as to the nature of axiomatic systems, that is, of mathematics itself. Whether Anderson’s definition of "nullity" is a truly useful improvement on IEEE’s “NaN” logic, is an open question – I don’t know. It is, however, a consistent axiomatic system, every bit as logical as anything else in mathematics. I don’t want him shut down by “truthyness” police lacking a clue about mathematics, but knowing that you "can't divide by zero" is the only true religion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.31.106.34 (talk)
    • i'm not sure if it is a consistent axiomatic system. it may be, he claims it's been tested, but it hasn't been through the peer review process. it's now going through the review by internet process--Mongreilf 12:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Given that no-one above has actually said anything of the kind, that is a straw man argument. You appear to be conflating this discussion with the BBC web site. The issue being discussed here is whether this person satisfies our WP:BIO criteria. Uncle G 13:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - As per above comment. For some reason people seem to be personally attacking him. It doesn't seem that anyone has come up with anything proving him wrong, they just seem to want to call him a crackpot for no real reason other than to retain their own elitist/purity view of mathematics. fintler 00:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm open to changing my mind, but I don't see how he meets criteria in either WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Is there some other guideline you'd suggest? Lunch 00:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • See the article for a new citation that goes towards satisfying WP:BIO. Uncle G 13:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
        • It's still a local BBC program. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Or if you're referring to the Reading Evening Post article, that comes from a newspaper with "a circulation of about 18,400" according to the Wikipedia article Reading Evening Post. Still local. Lunch 18:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
          • The circulation is irrelevant. Notability is not fame nor importance. The size of the target readership of the published works is irrelevant. Only the number, depths, and provenances of the published works are relevant. We don't, for example, exclude articles on obscure species of beetles just because only a few entomologists read the scientific journal articles that discuss them. Uncle G 10:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
            • I don't think anyone else agrees with you on this issue. Even so, your view is not specifically even up to the guideline level. Also, does this mean I would have been notable in 1975 because I was interviewed (for about 30 seconds each) on two local television stations (if they archived their news footage then, so we'd be able to verify). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
              • WP:BIO agrees with me. It draws no line that delineates "local articles that don't count" as you are doing, and rightly so. There's a great deal of systemic bias that flows from such a notion. It is your "It's local, so it doesn't count." that people don't agree with. And the answer to your question is "No.", because, unlike you with those 30 seconds of interview, James Anderson has been the subject of several articles all of which comprise more than just a single paragraph. The PNC requires "non-trivial" published works, remember. "It's local." is not a valid rebuttal. The valid rebuttals would be that the published works were not from independent sources (e.g. they are re-hashes of press releases), that they were trivial (i.e. are not in-depth coverage), or that there was in fact no more than one single piece. Until yesterday, there was no more than the one single piece. That is no longer the case. Uncle G 15:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 199.212.18.131 20:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia has other articles on frauds, like Sollog; it doesn't mean that we endorse their ideas. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • comment: That's a strawman. Nobody is saying that keeping entails endorsing ideas. People are saying he is just not so notable. Sollog appears to me to be much better known than James Anderson (mathematician). --C S (Talk) 23:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
      • He's had multiple articles written about him in the BBC. His pseudomath is not notable, but the media frenzy he's created around himself is. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Those are local (Berkshire) BBC articles. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
          • That's irrelevant, as explained above. Uncle G 10:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
        • If you feel that local news coverage is sufficient for notability, fine, that's your opinion and obviously I can't change it. But if you are suggesting that somehow there's been major international (or even national) coverage on this man, you are grossly mistaken. If the BBC decides to pick this up as a national story, then I would be forced to agree there has been indeed a "media frenzy". --C S (Talk) 04:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
          • You are wrong to exclude published works just because they are not widely read. We don't do that for small towns or for obscure species of beetles, and we don't do it for people. Notability is not fame nor importance. The size of the target readership of the published works is irrelevant. Only the number, depths, and provenances of the published works are relevant. If you could make a case that the published works are not from independent sources, or that they are not in-depth, or that there were not multiple works, then you would have a good argument. But you have not made such a case. Uncle G 10:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Ungle G, as you may have guessed, I don't abide by your PNC. Notability has to do with importance/usefulness in my opinion, and in that way serves a constructive function. Your guideline is basically set up so that some Little League coach that gets local news coverage about rescuing a cat from a tree gets a Wikipedia bio. How does that further Wikipedia's mission? Nobody here is arguing that obscure species of beetles should not be covered, so you may want to consider why not in order to understand the nuances of the position being held here. --C S (Talk) 13:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Your opinion is wrong, and it is you that needs to consider and understand what notability and the PNC actually are. Importance is subjective. Notability is not subjective. Editors' personal evaluations of importance, including yours, are not the way to decide what to include in an encyclopaedia. Doing so would result in a mess very quickly, and basing your arguments upon your subjective opinion of what is important does not help Wikipedia at all.

      Moreover, your argument about rescuing cats from trees is a straw man. You are ignoring the words "multiple" and "non-trivial" in the PNC. The rescue of a cat from a tree would almost certainly not be an in-depth article, and other articles would be required. Please think about notability, about why it is not the same as importance, and about why arguments about cat rescues are straw men. Uncle G 15:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

      • Sorry, but you're not the arbiter of whether my opinion is wrong and yours is right. And no, I didn't ignore the wording in your PNC. I say "your PNC", because despite your attempt to make it seem like your opinion is policy or a major guideline, it is not. If you are referring to the first bullet of a list in WP:BIO, then note that also part of the guideline is "People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them." (my emphasis) Not to mention that the guideline also states that this is not an exclusionary list, so it's not as if your PNC was not met, the article should be deleted. Insisting that "keep" and "delete" correspond to satisfying or not satisfying PNC is just your opinion; don't pretend otherwise.
        "Multiple" obviously means "more than one" and "non-trivial", interpreted by you here as "in-depth", can obviously happen in any human interest story such as the one I mention. So it's not a straw man, but a valid example. For example, please look at Cat Rescued From Tree] and explain why it is not "in-depth". In terms of "multiple", i.e. more than one, with Anderson, I see two independent sources, the local BBC station and the Reading Evening Post. The only aspect of your arguments so far, that I can see is valid is that here we have more coverage than in the "cat in tree" case. "more coverage" here means one more source. But I would think this is a pretty borderline case. If you're going to say "here we have two sources, whereas you have only one". Then that's a weak argument, in my opinion. --C S (Talk) 17:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
        BTW, I do not consider that Wikinews story a reliable source here, especially for notability purposes. --C S (Talk) 17:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If indeed James Anderson's is a crackpot, why not keep the article but specify the holes in his theories? That might provide useful information to anyone else trying to develop similar ideas. He passes notability by merit of the ongoing public discussion. Oneismany 00:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Oneismany. —Ben FrantzDale 03:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The article cites at least three published works (2 news articles by the BBC and 1 by the Reading Evening Post) from independent sources that talk about, in depth, this person and xyr presentation of xyr "nullity" idea to schoolchildren. The Wikinews story, documenting the ensuing reaction, is a fourth. The WP:BIO criteria, in particular the PNC, are satisfied. Keep. Uncle G 10:29, 13 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.