Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell J. Rowlett

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 of the debate was REDIRECT to Rowlett seems like the option that will satisfy most people since there's no outright delete. -Splashtalk 01:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Russell J. Rowlett

  • Is he known for anything other than his numbering system at Rowlett?? I vote to delete if this cannot be shown. Georgia guy 00:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - possible vanity, most certainly nn; no evidence of the proposed numbering system has been peer reviewed (only source given is his own web page), so even that reduces his reputation. 147.70.242.21 00:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep doesn't seem to be vanity as it was done by User:Jeppesn who is also over here Bruger:Jeppesn. Rowlett is verifiable as an actual professor at a real university and there are Google hits for "Rowlett numbering system." I dunno. There are a lot of cartoon and game characters being kept in the Wikipedia, I would tend to fall on the side that even a relatively minor math professor is more notable than, say, Homer Simpson (your mileage may vary). Mark K. Bilbo 00:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • He may be a real mathematics professor at a real college or university (but then again, so am I), but if his claim to fame is a numbering system that (based on evidence I've seen so far), has not been published in other than his personal web site, not only is his notoriety in question, but the validity of his invention must be called to question here as well. After all, I could devise a new set of names for larger numbers, but my proposal won't be noteworthy until and unless the mathematical community (or the academic community) accept it... or at least discuss it after reading it in a valid publication. B.Wind 04:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I agree with Markkbilbo. rodii 01:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Rowlett and merge. In fact, I've already done the merge since there was so little content to move. If he becomes noteworthy outside the numbering system, his article could be split off again. Friday (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I was all set to vote keep until I checked this out on Google - the results were most interesting. As stated above, almost all the references to this numbering system are in Rowlett's own homepage, add-it-yourself biopgraphical sites, and Wiki mirrors. Actually, Wiki mirrors and references in other Wiki pages make up almost the entire body of hits. I can't actually find any verifiable external sources outside Rowlett's own pages for this information. Can anyone point me to a genuine authoritative source for this system having any currency at all beyond Rowlett and his immediate circle? If not I propose to AfD Rowlett numbering system as being at best unverifiable original research and at worst a hoax. I find it hard to believe that a genuinely significant mathematical conept would have no hits on any university math faculty sites, for example. Try it yourself: Google for site:*.edu +Rowlett +gillion. Or am I doing something wrong? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems reasonable to me. I suggested the redirect based on the assumption that the numbering system was legitimately verifiable, but if it's not, it should go away too. Friday (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete based on what zis Guy found out...lacks verification.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 16:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect for now; the numbering system needs to be considered separately, and in the event that that too is put up for deletion and voted out, then the redirect will be cheap to delete at that time. — Haeleth Talk 20:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redirect to Rowlett at the very least. As a number-naming system (it's not a numbering system) I doubt it is used officially by any academic. Bmdavll talk 11:20, 6 December 2005 (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.