Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real analysis the problem

Whoever originally put this on VFD didn't give a reason, so i will; it's patent mathematical crankery, based on a misunderstood argument from Newton's time that has already been fixed by Weierstrass in the 1800s. This article has no mathematical validity. Pyrop 01:04, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: nonsense rant. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:26, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: crankery. -Sean Curtin 01:43, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sad. IMO there's some evidence that the author is aware of Weierstrass' work, and they even name-drop non-standard analysis. There are some interesting ideas here, but they are either original research, crankery, or both, and certainly unencyclopedic. Andrewa 06:29, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I added this one, but then had bad problems with my connection. (Later - oh, reasons - tissue of POV and nonsense about decimals. The comment added below anonymously is from the same IP number as the original page, by the way.) Charles Matthews 22:01, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nonsense. Josh Cherry 02:03, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The history at the beginning can be better covered elsewhere, and the rest is just wrong (yes, 0.999... does equal 1.) - Mustafaa 04:27, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is amusing and belongs on a mathematical jokes web page, but not in an encyclopedia.  Real analysis is a serious mathematical theory, and a funny, but nonsensical, article stating that real analysis is flawed should not be in an encyclopedia. Curtisf14 17:12, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * DO NOT DELETE! This article is extremely interesting and appears to have a lot of truth in it. The article makes perfect sense to me. Would those shouting for its deletion, please explain why they want it deleted?
 * Because it seems to me that some of the more academic members of this community question its validity and several of them are labeling this as quackery. Personally, I happen to think it reads like a textbook and original POV research.  Let's face it:  If you put rouge on a pig in order to make it pretty, the end result is a rouged pig.  All the rouge in the world might not save this. - Lucky 6.9 00:45, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * By the time I got to reading this page, the article in question was gone (fortunately).  But it does seem like a missed a good joke. Maybe we should propose a new wikiproject called wikicranks. Any article that is ignominiously rejected gets added to wikicranks. CSTAR 17:32, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)