Deletion of Non-universality in computation

Comment: Most of the delete arguments above seem to rely on a novel interpretation of "independent sources." First, the subject is not the author, and second, the references in question seem to have been published by reliable third parties with editorial and/or peer review. The fact that the same author appears on them only means caution must be used, per . (Note to closing admin, please review relevant policy and discount any arguments made contrary to policy). I don't know if this theory is true or not, and neither do the others making arguments that it is not, which is  anyway. We don't allow inclusion of OR in WP, and we shouldn't allow exclusion based on OR either. Even if a counter-proof was published in a reliable source, we would simply merge that into this article, give each appropriate weight per , and let the reader decide: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", per: . There seems to have been a productive discussion on the talk page for this article, and the normal editing process should be followed, with the history preserved. Move any unsupported controversial material to the talk page, and work out a reasonable compromise
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SPS||WP:OR||WP:NPOV||WP:V)

Comment: moving hotly disputed content to a  page is probably ill advised. If the content were stable, a merge might be an option. Having a separate article does not mean it is an accepted theory, and the article can and should clearly lay that out
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: there is nothing wrong with this, it is specifically permitted by policy. For example, see the  FAQ at: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: I've refrained from commenting thus far, as it seemed to be that Akl's publications have established a marginal grounds for keep.  Nonetheless, as this discussion has progressed, it's become clearer to me that the people arguing "delete" have a better grasp of Wikipedia policy and how Akl's work here pertains.  Akl's challenge to the notion of universality in computation is one of many by others that have been made over the years, and like the others, shows no sign of making a non=negligible impact on the field.  Dhaluza's proposal to promote Akl's work in order to "give balance" is ridiculous.  Why should we promote Akl's work over all the others that have also raised challenges of dubious merit to Turing's work?  There is no reason to regard Akl's work of worthy of even mention in Wikipedia.  There are a few peer-reviewed publications, sure, which incidentally appear in journals with Akl as an editor.  The others do not appear peer-reviewed.  As a big section of  states, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Just citing a small number of peer-reviewed publications by one researcher and his collaborator does not qualify as an "extraordinary" evidence
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Even if the concept ''were'' notable, the ''name'' is only used by Selim Akl, so  comes to mind a reason to delete.  &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: to Selim Akl.  This should not be presented as an accepted theory until there is some evidence that it is actually accepted; as it stands, the concept covered in this article is purely the product of Akl's work, and is therefore only appropriate in Wikipedia as part of our biographical coverage of Akl.  However, the author has made a solid argument that this does comply with  and other core policies; therefore it's reasonable that we include it somewhere
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)