Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curtis Cooper

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 keep. W.marsh 03:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Curtis Cooper

• Delete: Non-notable professor whose computer found a huge prime number using downloadable software as part of the GIMPS project. Per my understanding, the software retrieves gigantic numbers - determined almost randomly by a centralized server - that fit a certain pattern. The computer's owner goes about his or her regular life while the computer uses an algorithm to determine if it's a prime number. My computer is also running the same software. The people that came up with the idea and the software deserve a big fat article - the people that simply download and run it?... This is as notable as people that win the lottery - except it would be a small lottery since there was no money involved here. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Boone. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to the project page. You aren't running it on 700 unit cluster. kotepho 16:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep (see below) kotepho 21:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• • But I could still find a bigger one on my little 733Mhz. The network admin at my company could push the program to thousands of computers - that doesn't make him notable either. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Cooper is notable. A mathscinet search shows up 23 hits (4 of which are solutions to problems) so 19 actual hits. He is the primary author of a papers in the American Mathematical Monthly which is one of the most widely circulated math journals in the world. JoshuaZ 17:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment if the article is expanded to include his academic work I would likely change my vote to keep. kotepho 18:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have added some of the (in my opinion) more interesting papers. JoshuaZ 20:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• keep please person is notable Yuckfoo 03:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep per JoshuaZ, but I'd like to point out that mathematics has no notion of "primary author". Authors are almost always listed alphabetically in mathematics. JeffBurdges 16:27, 26 March 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.