Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erlendur Haraldsson


 * 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 Keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Erlendur Haraldsson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There's no reliable sources that discuss the paranormal work of Haraldsson. Over 80% of the article is sourced to his own paranormal fringe papers such as by the Society for Psychical Research. There appears to be no critical coverage for his paranormal claims. An internet search reveals only fringe paranormal-related websites mentioning his work. Due to the lack of reliable sources, there's no possible way this article can be neutral. It is heavily biased towards fringe ideas. Goblin Face (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Goblin Face (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. GS h-index of ~ 18 passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Note, one of his books was praised by famous psychologist Hans Eysenck  "Well worth reading for the interest of the topic, of the man, and the puzzle it presents - Professor Hans Eysenck, University of London" Andries (talk) 05:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That is a fringe book that talks about miracles being real. As for the comment about Eysenck he was a big believer in the paranormal so it's not surprising he gave the book a positive review but amazon isn't a reliable source. My original comments still stand - what critical or skeptical reliable material/sources do we have that cover Haraldsson's paranormal claims? The whole article is basically sourced to his own fringe papers. Goblin Face (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I read the book and it debunks some miracles and leaves the possibility open that other miracle stories are true miracles. There is a lot of criticism of Haraldsson's work but it is hard line skeptic, like the Indian Skeptic and I do not think sufficiently reputable. Andries (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The comment by Hans Eysenck about Haraldsson's book is real. See [ http://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=FZzaeRsAAAAJ&cstart=320&sortby=pubdate&citation_for_view=FZzaeRsAAAAJ:_AkkBXT-jcoChere here.]Andries (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. WP:I DON'T LIKE IT is not a valid reason for deleting an article. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC).


 * The problem is that there are not any reliable references that discuss his work - only paranormal books or websites, I just spent even more time looking and can't find any. There are none. I don't see how the article can be improved. Goblin Face (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, there are hundreds of citations to his work in Google scholar. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC).


 * Comment If we removed all the material cited to primary sources (Haraldsson's own work) and all the unreliable references to fringe journals, would there be anything left to build a stub article from? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, if you think that the Indian Skeptic is not reputable enough. Andries (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've copyedited the article and removed material cited to primary and fringe sources. (BTW: The reputability of Indian Skeptic has nothing to do with this discussion) - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What do u mean? What I meant to say is that I could turn it into a reasonable article if people agree that the Indian Skeptic is a reputable source for criticism and reviews of his writings. I personally do not think that the Indian Skeptic is reputable enough. Andries (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that this deletion debate does not ultimately turn on whether Indian Skeptic is reliable or not. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. In addition to his importance in his chosen field of continuing research (we don't suppress information about scholars because we disagree with them or dislike what they work on; we present information neutrally), he is documentably notable in his own country. He is the subject of a biographical book (published in 2012) and in 2010, 11 years after his retirement, an institute was endowed at the University of Iceland named for him:, . His research on Icelanders' beliefs regarding dreams has been built on by the Skuggsjá Dream Center. (He's also mentioned in two places in this book. I'll continue to search for newspaper and academic coverage, which I suspect will be mostly in Icelandic, but I believe his national impact merits our having an article on him and overcomes the fringe nature of some of the English-language sources on his work. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * After further examination of the sources, I need to modify the above a little. It isn't an institute, but rather an endowed fund, and he facilitated its establishment (in 2007). Also he coauthored the biography. However, in addition to press mentions, at least three of his studies turn out to be widely cited in sources I can see on JSTOR, some of which are giving me material I can add. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete unless completely rewritten before the close of this debate. The almost entirely self-sourced article reads as a vanity biography, which does the subject a great disservice if he is genuinely notable and does Wikipedia a disservice if he isn't. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Self-sourced? Nonsense, See my comment above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC).


 * You wrote there are hundreds of citations in Google Scholar that mention his work. I just went through 20 pages on Google Scholar. They are mostly self-sourced i.e. his own papers in fringe psychical or spiritualist journals. There's nothing reliable there. Goblin Face (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. For example, one of the 108 citations to his book is in the British Journal of Psychology . Take a look at the other 107. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC).


 * That is a paper by Richard Wiseman which doesn't even discuss Haraldsson's work in any detail whatsoever, it just uses one of his psychical papers as a reference that is all. Wiseman's paper can be found here, search for Haraldsson. Explain how this would be useful to the article? Goblin Face (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That is what a citation is and that is why many hundreds of them are required to pass WP:Prof. In this case there is a pass. Anyway, what is wrong with fringe psychical or spiritualist journals? Cannot they be used as sources for fringe psychical or spiritualist matters? Is it your view that Wikipedia should contain no material on such topics? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC).


 * If there is critical/skeptical material in third-party reliable sources for such paranormal claims then they can be used with the fringe papers, otherwise we will have an article that is in violation of NPOV, undue weight to fringe theories etc that only has paranormal papers cited on it. This is the problem with the Haraldsson article only his own papers are being cited and those papers are endorsing all kinds of wacky stuff. Take a look at other articles like Dean Radin or Russell Targ, this is how the article should be. There needs to be a reception section showing the mainstream view of the subject or at least some non-fringe references that discuss his paranormal claims. Goblin Face (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no policy that requires "critical/skeptical material" for an article to be acceptable for Wikipedia. Anyway, there is here, there are dozens of mainstream sources among the subject's citations, not least British Journal of Psychology. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Indeed. But there is a policy that requires non-trivial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources (i.e. we can't source the subject's significance by counting the number of things he has published). Guy (Help!) 17:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

As an occasional user, I must say, I am quite shocked that Wikipedia should even be considering deleting this article, although I agree that it may have some faults in terms of the sourcing policy, and possibly in terms of NPOV. Erlendur Haraldsson is a very prominent person in the field, and whatever you may think of the field, he is a professor emeritus of his university. It is natural that many people - such as myself - may be interested in learning of his activities and his life, and it is natural for them to turn for information to Wikipedia, the source of all knowledge, goodness, and wisdom. Very likely the article needs to be improved, as do many articles. But to purge Wikipedia of all mention of this important person would not do the public a service at all. (It certainly would inhibit me from making future contributions to Wikipedia, both textual and financial.) I note that many very obscure figures, such as American college football athletes, have their own Wikipedia pages; and this is OK, because the encyclopedia is expandable without limit. I also point out that deleting this article would furnish more grist for the mill of persons who claim that studies of the sort pursued by Erlendur are subjected to vicious and oppressive academic censorship and opprobrium. Pretty solid and believable grist, actually. Thomas Goodey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.90.7 (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You need not be too shocked. Worse things have happened here. Does this mean that you are voting keep? Xxanthippe (talk) 07:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Off topic, answer to Thomas Goodey, yes his research has been attacked viciously, [removed comments that I and others wrote on blogs] Andries (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , without a reference that's a violation of our policy concerning living persons. Do you have such a reference? If not, please refactor your comment. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep because reliable references have been found and added. I also found the articles in the Indian Skeptic that Andries mentioned, I will add them at some point. Goblin Face (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The discussion here reminds a bit of people dedicated to materialism and finding everything else "fringe". Fortunately there are brave scientists who endure criticism of such "mainstreamers" and widen our horizon by applying scientific methods. If Goblin Face finds references - but lots and important ones! - only in paranormal books and websites, it is not different from finding research on horse breeding in books on biology but not in books on e.g. electricity. Haraldsson´s work is not "mostly Icelandic" but very international. He was a close associate of Ian Stevenson and is the outstanding scientific expert on the amazing personality of the world famous Indian Guru Sai Baba. Haraldsson is one of the pillars of modern consciousness research and very much worth being presented in Wikipedia.Imbush (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I would appreciate if someone who is knowledgeable on the topic could summarize these on the article in detail regarding Haraldsson's views on Sathya Sai Baba. Also some letters here, Vol. 1 No. 3 July 1988. Goblin Face (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep -  'Looks like the deletionist cabal hard at work as usual.  If it isn't Anglo-American, if it isn't AMA/FDA approved, if it isn't blessed by certain clergy that drink the right brand of whiskey, down the memory hole it must go.  Yet there are literally thousands of articles about English and American subjects that nobody ever questions; it's just UNDERSTOOD they matter 'cuz they relate to a relevant place on the globe That m.o. does not improve the quality of Wikipedia or its standing among the greater global English-speaking population.  WP notability standards are quite clear, at least in several categories (e.g., music) which can be analogized here:  It doesn't matter if it's a country of 1.2 billion people or a country of 320,000 people.  That's one of the beautiful things about Wikipedia.  In principle.  Until deletionists' quotas must be met.  Wir müssen etwas finden, um zu löschen, ja? Paavo273 (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2014 (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.