Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-universality in computation
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
— User:C, 23:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:RS (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)