Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Eastlund


 * 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 was No consensus/dismissed per rewrite with references, no prejudice against re-nomination on other concerns. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 02:04Z 

Bernard Eastlund

 * — (View AfD)

The article reads like a CV, not notable, no references and no citations. Meno25 00:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin - the referencing has certainly been improved here, and despite the pattern below it would probably be unfair to delete this article. A no-consensus or relisting to consider with new evidence may be appropriate.  Dei zio  talk 01:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete unless references are provided. Nick Graves 00:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and cite sources. Articles shouldnt be moved to AfD because they lack sources. There are plenty of Ghits. 203.57.241.67 00:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Encise
 * References must be provided in order for an article to be verifiable. See WP:REF. In my case, delete per nom. Sr13 02:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless references are provided, delete per nom. Big  top  01:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete He's the president of a company, got a patent, and was mentioned in an article. None of these constitutes notability. Akihabara 01:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Useless references -- Selmo  (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MER-C 05:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet WP:BIO. Khukri ( talk  .  contribs ) 13:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable. ← A NAS  Talk? 13:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. NN and seems like a vanity entry, perhaps.-- E va   b  d  15:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 *  Delete , physicist, businessman, non-notable. Keep, looks good but format the refs.  Dei zio  talk 16:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Nothing in the article asserts notability. If the article could be improved to show that his research is considered notable by some other sources, I'd change to keep. Tarinth 18:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Tarinth. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 19:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Akihabara --  ßott  e   siηi  (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete", easily fails WP:BIO, no references, WP:RS. // I c e d K o l a  23:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete (singing lyrics to "You're So Vain"...) Maddy626 09:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete joining the chorus singing my favourite Carly Simon song. SkierRMH, 22:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Bernard Eastlund is clearly notable using the primary notability criterion in that he has been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." A simple book search at Amazon.com  for Bernard Eastlund shows that he was the subject of the following books --
 * 1. Haarp: The Ultimate Weapon of the Conspiracy (The Mind-Control Conspiracy Series) by Jerry E. Smith, Published by Adventures Unlimited Press, August 1998, Page 20.
 * 2. Chemtrails Confirmed by William Thomas Published by Bridger House Publishers, August 2004, Aug 2004, Page 143.
 * 3. Conspiranoia!: The Mother of All Conspiracy Theories by Devon Jackson, Published by Plume Publishers, Jan 1, 2000, Page 330.
 * 4. The Universal Seduction Vol. 3: Piercing the Veils of Deception - Volume 3 by Angelico Tapestra--The Collective, Published by BookSurge Publishing, April 7, 2004, Page 33.
 * 5. Mind Control, World Control by Jim Keith, Published by Adventures Unlimited Press, Feb 1998, Page 247.
 * 6. Final Reckoning by Ward Ciappetta, Published by Xulon Press, Jun 17, 2005, Page 175.
 * 7. An End to Global Warming by L.O. Williams, Published by Pergamon Press, August 1, 2002, Page 58.
 * 8. Fusion: Science, Politics, and the Invention of a New Energy Source by Joan Lisa Bromberg Published by MIT Press, Sep 29, 1982, Index.
 * In addition, Bernard Eastlund is one of the patent holders (US Patent #4,686,605) that led to the development of the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program HAARP which has been sensationalized in many books as a weapon with the potential to destroy the world by creating a death ray and altering weather patterns.
 * Therefore, Bernard Eastlund is without a doubt a very notable person both in the popular press and as an inventor. --Jamira  21:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Though not as strong as Jamira. only two of those books are non-vanity press, and in both of them he is a mention on a single page, or just in an index. But there are other possible sources all around. Send back for sourcing. It is sourceable. Going back to Akihabara, the patent and the article are the necessary two sources to keep the article, though more should be done. This time, I am not offering to do it.  Jamira? DGG 05:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete My understanding of "subject of a book" would be that the majority of the book was about him, not an arbitrary mention on a page here and there. One Night In Hackney 07:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. User:One Night In Hackney, thank you for your comment.  This is where the term non-triviality comes into use.  According to the primary notability criterion which explains the depth of content needed in the published work, the subject (Bernard Eklund, in this case)needs to be more than "mere directory entry information" and the publication needs to directly address the subject. That is all it requires.  "A page here and there," if non-trivial, is all that is needed.  It does not require that the majority of the published work be about the subject, only that it is non-trivial and more than a "directory entry" such as a list.  In any case, I only used these books as an example of how widespread references to Bernard Eklund are in published books found at Amazon.com.


 * In addition to books at Amazon.com, searching Google yields an incredible number of hits (about 9,280).  This is because Bernard Eastlund is so notable in the popular press.  As explained above, many authors are writing about the potential of HAARP as a weapon.  I am not saying they are right, only that these publications exist, thereby satisfying the primary notability criterion. For example --


 * Dan Eden published an article about Bernard Eastlund and states, "Eventually everyone will know about Bernard Eastlund and his work. It will someday be taught in schools. His technology will impact every living thing. But this will have to wait for the military, who own his valuable patents, to release Eastlund's work for humane applications."


 * Another published article sensationalizing Bernard Eastlund's inventions states, "Hoping to cash in on climate change, Eastlund now says that his company ESEC recently signed a contract with the European Space Agency to review the weather modification potential of the HAARP facility in Alaska.  Eastlund is also looking to abort tornadoes using HAARP to turn off these whirling dervishes before wind speeds reach destructive force."


 * In addition, the Google search yields another article about Bernard Eastlund and the "HAARP Geophysical Weapon" stating, "American scientist Bernard Eastlund is considered to be the godfather of this program. He received the patent for the method and for the device to measure the layers of the Earth atmosphere, the ionosphere and/or the magnetosphere."


 * My point is that there are literally hundreds of published reports like these about Bernard Eastlund. You only need "multiple non-trivial published reports" (i.e. more than one) to satisfy the primary notability criterion.  I am not saying that Bernard Eastlund is a good scientist or even a famous one, only that he is notable by the definition of the Wikipedia primary notability criterion and as such should be included in Wikipedia. --Jamira  19:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly a stickler for a person to be the main subject of serious coverage in serious sources. I'm still not convinced about our subject here, but in any case the list of books used as references does not provide much context on what coverage he received in those sources. Anybody so widely covered in these times must surely have been the focus of news reports and other repectable coverage which can be accessed on the internet? I got 391 unique google hits which is a fair number but not really "incredible". Also, the Eden report mentioned above is not on a source which strikes me as "reliable" for establishing notability.  Dei zio  talk 20:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Those books do not seem to meet the primary notability criterion, which states "Non-triviality" is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject, and is further clarified with a footnote which states Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial.  The 1 sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton  is plainly trivial.  So I'm really struggling to understand your interpretation of the guideline here, perhaps you can expand? One Night In Hackney 20:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment User:One Night In Hackney, thank you for your comment. To answer your question, the guidelines on non-triviality seem quite clear.  If a subject is mentioned merely as part of a list or a directory reference (e.g. a phone book directory), it is trivial.  If there is some discussion of the subject (more than it just being listed) it is non-trivial.    But I think you will agree that it is not necessary for several books to be written about someone before they are considered notable.  Please note that being notable is not the same thing as being famous. One can be notable without being famous.  For more discussion on the primary notability criterion, it is best to go directly to the source which is User:Uncle_G.  I hope this explains the term non-triviality as used for WP notability.  Thanks again for your comment.  --Jamira 21:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Jamira, I see a lot of your interpretation of the notability / published coverage guidelines, but your tone is that of someone patiently explaining absolute facts to a questioning child. There is no accepted bar for triviality (that's why we have so many of these fun debates down at AfD), hence your assertion that one exists is wrong - "Is the bar low for establishing non-triviality and notability? Yes." Really? I missed that meeting. Given the evidence presented thus far, I think the bar is higher than Mr. Eastlund, and others appear to agree. I notice you have a total of 17 edits, with more than half of them related to Mr. Eastlund, and can't help but wonder if you perhaps lack experience in deletion and policy matters?  Dei zio  talk 00:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * comment one Rules of the game: whoever descends to personalities first loses. Obviously that isn't the std WP practice, but it is certainly how I look at the comments here in judging the quality--not just quantity--of support. We are not here to discuss each others' merits, but those of the article.
 * comment two When opinion about notability is this much divided, it's notable.DGG 03:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If any offence is taken from my comments then I apologize as that was not my intention. I would dispute that opinion is particularly divided here, the head count certainly leans in a clear direction.  Dei zio  talk 03:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Even user DGG stated "only two of those books are non-vanity press, and in both of them he is a mention on a single page, or just in an index", which in my opinion can only be classed as trivial mentions. I'm not saying a person needs to have several books written about them to be notable, but a chapter or two might be a good starting point.  One Night In Hackney 04:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment.  Further proof of Bernard Eastlund's notability can be obtained by searching Google News .  Bernard Eastlund has been the subject of news articles in the Washington Post, USA Today , Anchorage Daily News , Wired Magazine , Current Science, Space News, The Advocate, Nevada State Journal, Fusion Power Report, The Argus (California Newspaper), Telepolis (German Newspaper) , and Environmental Magazine. Additionally, he was interviewed by National Public Radio (NPR)  on their Talk of the Nation program about his research. Without a doubt, these articles establish his notability as defined in the primary notability criterion.

Please note that as of 16:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC) the article on Bernard Eastlund has been completely rewritten and references incorporated in order to validate his notability. --Jamira 16:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty happy with the USAToday and Wired articles in particular, would like to see all references better formatted into the article.  Dei zio  talk 16:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I see "been the subject of" is still being mis-interpreted, also some of the references provided are not free to view. If the references were properly incorporated into the article so it could be verified I'd possibly go for a "Week keep", but not at this moment in time. One Night In Hackney 19:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sounds like he's notable for the Fusion Torch invention alone, whatever that is -- whatever HAARP turns out to be. If one could expand on why he received the special award for the Fusion Torch, "notability" would be assured, I think, even in the eyes of some of the skeptics.Shawn in Montreal 01:48, 28 December 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.