Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arvan Harvat


 * 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 Delete. The Land 01:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Arvan Harvat
Vanity bio as per WP:BIO. According to Google, this person has no published work. He has written reviews for some books on Amazon and some articles at Kheper.net. Ziggurat 01:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete A7 Vanity bio, nn etc... Writing a few essays on *some website* doesn't work here.. Deiz 02:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - informative critic of G. I. Gurdjieff, Ken Wilber, etc M Alan Kazlev 03:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I fully agree that Mr Harvat is not notable if one were to simply use as a standard books published (none) or google hits (about 490, not including wikipedia mirrors), or general newsworthiness. However I suggest he is notable in that his essays and critques provide an interesting perspective on controversial individuals or subjects, especially in the sphere of Esotericism.  It is only in the interests of incorporating a diversity of perspectives that I suggest the article should be kept. M Alan Kazlev 04:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedily Delete (CSD A7) the diversity of perspectives, because it does not meet Notability guidelines. Ikkyu2 06:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Deiz, Ikkyu. Eusebeus 07:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete vanity. --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 15:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverifiable, possible speedy as db-bio. Stifle 23:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Harvat's criticisms of contemporary philosophers at kheper.net are inherently notable. Additionally, article says that Harvat has published a physics thesis. Most published author articles end up being kept. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment While a thesis published as a book would be an important point, I read the article as indicating that the thesis has been completed and submitted ('published' in only a few copies to be submitted to the supervising university and its library). I don't think they're the same thing. Additionally, I'm not sure what you mean by "inherently notable". Ziggurat 20:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, forget "inherently". His critiques are notable. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that the unique content of the critiques rendered them notable in my opinion, even if they haven't been widely noted. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. I think he is just short of the threshold of notability, and he's obscure enough that we're not going to be able to get a neutral article on him or his views. —Cleared as filed. 13:08, 4 February 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.