Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Tajmar


 * 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. Although by simple count, the comments are only slightly in favour of keeping, I find the arguments that the subject has pioneered a notable area persuasive of meeting WP:PROF, while the third party articles cited are adequate for verifiability. The several delete arguments that hinge around coatracking, original research or pseudoscience do not seem well founded. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Martin Tajmar

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not a notable personage per WP:PROF. Looks like soapboxing and coatracks for fringe theories as well. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Notable, mentioned in New Scientist and by ESA for finding an anamoly. The article should state that verifications are uncertain. The article already helped me figure out the state of the issue and helped me figure out that a lot of people were stupid because they thought he made a gravitation field. Well sourced article, and gives depth that other articles can't give. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep According to web of science, 23 articles, but none cited morethan nine times. (Tajmar M, Wang J "Three-dimensional numerical simulation of field-emission-electric-propulsion neutralization" JOURNAL OF PROPULSION AND POWER 16 (3): 536-544 MAY-JUN 2000 Times Cited: 9) Clearly not yet  notable as a scientist. Probably not  certain whethe r he might be as an engineer.DGG (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominator is incorrect on both counts. 1. As the discoverer of a new effect, the subject easily meets criterion 5 of WP:PROF, and the effect has been discussed and researched by independent researchers (e.g. the U. of Canterbury group). 2. However closely I read the article, I fail to see any evidence of "fringe" science--this is a reputable mainstream scientist doing grant-funded research for a respectable international body (the ESA).  It seems like the nominator strung together several loaded phrases ("coatracking", "fringe theory", etc.) without really understanding what they refer to.  There is no evidence of coatracking, etc. within the article. Freederick (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, characterizing this person as a discoverer of a new effect is really reaching. Where's his prominence? Where are the accolades for his amazing discovery? Where's the Nobel Prize? Now, it may turn out this guy's on to something (I doubt it, but I'll keep an open mind). However, he hasn't been very convincing yet. No one except the increasingly disappointing New Scientist seems to take notice. Secondly, ESA gave him a grant. So what? Space agencies have wide latitude to give grants to all kinds of people and they frequently do. If we had an article on every person who received a grant from a space agency, WP:PROF would be thrown out the window! Also, whenever Heim theory gets mentioned red flags need to be raised high. I think a lot of the chacterizations being made by Freederick are pretty far off the mark. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not all advances in science are "amazing" and end up on the evening news. Are you actually so naive as to think that public accolades are the touchstone of a scientific discovery, or are you just putting a spin on things?  Also, I don't understand your remarks about Heim theory.  Would you care to elaborate? Freederick (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Heim theory has been criticized as pseudoscience. Public accolades are part of what can conceivably make someone notable who is a (pseudo)scientist. Likewise, scientific recognition. However, this person has received neither. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. You do realize that "has been criticized" is a classic example of weasel wording, right?
 * 2. The article on Heim theory has been through several AfD's itself, with a Keep result.
 * 3. Heim theory gets one mention at the bottom of the Tajmar article. If it's HT that you have a quarrel with, I won't object if you remove that mention, and leave the Tajmar article out of it.  AFAIK, Tajmar's research is not grounded in HT, and the claimed connection is tenuous at best. Freederick (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: I removed the sentence linking to HT from the article. Freederick (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails notability since no biographical sources are presented that discuss Martin Tajmar, the subject of the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * comment Biographical sources? Gimme a break. This is a scientist, not a pop star: his academic work is what is relevant, and that is referenced in the article.  WP:PROF applies, rather than WP:BIO.  But even WP:BIO says nothing about "biographical" sources being necessary.  On the contrary, it says: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.  Sort of fits the bill, doesn't it?  Freederick (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * When I say "biographical" I mean independent sources that discuss him as a person and assess his personal accomplishments relative to that of other scientists. His academic papers themselves do not establish notability, we need sources that were written by somebody else. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Relistsed to generate consensus ScienceApologist (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This had already been closed but been relisted by the nominator with the original closer's consent. I just corrected the log. Tikiwont (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Coatrack, not a professor. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, notability for a biographical article not established. Consider mention on Frame-dragging. People who write a notable paper get their paper cited on Wikipedia, they do not automatically get a full biography. dab (𒁳) 20:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * keep - seems on the edge of notability for keeping, so I usually recomment to keep. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep He has written a textbook published by an academic press, published many articles in highly reputable journals. Anthon01 (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Content may or may not be notable, but subject himself seems to fairly clearly fail to meet the standards of personal notability. Sourced, notable content could perhaps be placed in a different article. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The subject of the article himself does not appear to be notable. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Many independent sources are given to show that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources, especially with regards to the New Scientist article. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I never heard of this and have no opinion, but I found two bits of information.
 * 1. Deutschlandfunk (if you are in the US, it's like NPR) visited his laboratory in November 2006. What he said sounds impressive, and the way he said it does not sound like the usual fringe stuff to me. (I only read the transcript.) Here is a translation of something he says:
 * "If someone finds that there is another translation for my effect, it's all right with me as well. Now I don't insist that I have created a gravitation field. I think it's the most likely explanation. If it's something else, then it's something else. In any case: I don't think that so far anybody has done something else where a laser gyro thinks it's rotating even though it's firmly attached to the ceiling. Now that's at least a curiosity that is worth being examined further."
 * 2. I am unfamiliar with the German language Wikipedia, and it seems to be a few years behind. In any case I found a relevant discussion (in German) there in the physics project, in which people were very critical of Martin Tajmar. I have invited Ben-Oni to take part in this discussion. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * comment On the grounds of notability, the article about the person has more significance, IMO, if he is the sole source for something else which is notable. So maybe the guy has only done one thing, but if that thing is notable enough for an article, then an item for it's author makes sense to me. That said, I agree with Hans that more could be done to assess the notability of the item (an apparent electromagnetically induced gravitational effect?) itself. There is honest work being done in Unification; so I'll drop a note at the Lisi talk page, where all the bravest mathematical physicists hang out, and some cowardly mathematicians lurk :-) Pete St.John (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that this work does not involve unification, or any electromagnetic connection to gravitation. The theory is only formulated using gravitomagnetism which is a convenient set of formal analogies between electromagnetism and gravitation. It aims to explain observations of the mass of paired electrons in a particular superconductor, the physics of the electrical properties of electrons and superconductors does not really enter into it. The theory was really quite a long shot, and the evidence seems to show it incorrect. Still, correctness is not a criteria for a theory being in wikipedia, only notability. Rgraham_nz (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Just passes over the threshold, I'd say, based on whats there now and the analysis here. Since he's that close, which is enough to be a minor, quiet article, there is no reason to assume it won't simply expand further. Or stay this size. Either way is fine, but deletion would be premature. Lawrence  §  t / e  00:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:PROF, greater than average prof. Philosophically, I support academics somewhat notable in their field, however narrow their field is. Tparameter (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Added comment. It sounds like ScienceApologist thinks the guy is a kook. I could defer to his expertise if a case is made that this is a fringe loon or something, then change my vote. I'm not familiar with the guy's work. Tparameter (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Uncertain The article is very poorly sourced, but if better sources exist and can be added, I have no real problem with it. Adam Cuerden talk 06:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The name has got some recognition by good PR, e.g. by his attempts to let his fringe research appear more linked to ESA than it was. Judging by the usual standard in academics and physics, he clearly doesn't take the notability threshold. Borderline case, tending to delete, to not honour this sort of making oneself appear more important. --Pjacobi (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * comment While this discussion is going on, PouponOnToast has been repeatedly blanking large portions of the page in question, including the references section some relevant references. He has persisted in this borderline vandalism despite being asked to refrain until the AfD is closed.  While such actions would be obnoxious enough under ordinary circumstances, they are particularly pernicious while an AfD is in progress.  Please desist. Freederick (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * comment My goal is to remove the coatrack from the article, nothing more. I have not blanked the references section. PouponOnToast (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I do not believe that the section in question qualifies as a coatrack according to wikipedias guidelines. It presents a non-biased overview of his research and does not mislead the reader. That a large fraction of the content of the page relates to this particular work does not constitute a coatrack. In my opinion replacing the section with simply the comment 'The effect has not yet been observed independently' is very misleading to the reader since the effect (at least according to his original theory) has been shown to not exist by an independent group and this has been accepted for publication in a peer review journal.

I have followed this research and read the relevant papers; while the evidence does not support this theory it is still legitimate science and should be retained by wikipedia. However it may be that this (biography) page is not the best place for the details of his work, I propose either: My opinion is that the first option is the best option at this time ... if other researches become significantly involved in this research at a later time then the second option may be best. Please post your opinion. Rgraham_nz (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Comment although the article should make it clear that the data has been not confirmed, and the theory not accepted. This is one ofthe exceptional cases where proposing something that turns out to be wrong is still notable. DGG (talk) 05:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC).
 * 1) The content relating to gravitomagnetism and superconductors be restored
 * 2) The content be moved to a separate page, just about this theory
 * Weak keep Pending more sources and per Wikipedia:PROF. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I do not think he is a kook (well, no more than is the norm for Breakthrough Propulsion), but he is not even close to meeting WP:PROF. There are an almost limitless number of people with tweaks to BCS or GR or whatever, WP:BALL says we wait until one of them generates significant independent coverage for being right or they become notable for some other reason. Eldereft (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - reasonable to include this sort of thing, people will likely be searching for details. MilesAgain (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable even for psuedoscience. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete. Doesn't meet WP:PROF, article seems to be about his alleged discovery, rather than about him, material might be appropriate under some other title. But as written the article isn't a biography. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable, original research. He may have been mentioned in magazine on science, but so are a lot of non-notable fringe theorists. The article as it is, is ridiculously technical and invokes concepts that aren't explained on outside articles, making it unencyclopedic, since an encyclopedia is designed for a general audience -- which isn't going to be the same, for instance, as the same audience that might read magazines on science. And significance in academia does not equate with encyclopedic notability. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - his research was sufficiently notable that another group ran their own test of his theory. The article content appears to be verifiable. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I find the debate here amusing, especially the folks who call research in this area pseudoscience. But then again, you might be right. The folks at Skunkworks are known for their lack of intelligence.  Tajmar's work is groundbreaking, and he is running into the same institutionalized resistance that others like him have in the past.  That is the only reason some of you would like to delete his entry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csm2 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 29 January 2008 (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.