Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nassim Haramein


 * 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   '''Needs cleanup but from ratonales seems salvagable and somewhat notable. Keep for now'''. Tawker (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Nassim Haramein

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No assertion of notability; article appears to fail WP:Notability (academics). According to talk page, main claim to establishing importance seems to be some quotes on the subject's own website.

Whilst a Google search, for instance, produces thousands of hits, on closer inspection, the majority of them appear to be video clips from the subject's DVD on Youtube-like sites, or forum posts. I can't really find anything that approaches non-trivial independent coverage.

Was originally PRODded; removed by article creator. Oli Filth(talk 19:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete as per nomination. I too had trouble finding anything this guy's published. ArXiv search turned up nothing, so it doesn't appear that he's a scientist. RayAYang (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I too have looked for reliable, third party sources that would establish notability and have come up empty handed. Yilloslime (t) 22:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Haramein has been published by the Noetic Press and has written extensive papers on theoretical physics, whether according to Wikipedia this makes him a 'scientist' or not. The link is on his Wiki page. However I did change the category so this "notability-academics" requirement might be removed and we could move on with a page on him on Wikipedia as a notable living person. I am hoping some other Wikipedia editors might come forth to provide an unbiased point of view on this.Avsav (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless there can be found some third party material referring to him. and his theories. ArXiv tends to include even very non-conventional physics if presented in an academic fashion, unless it makes no sense whatever. The absence there is indicative that either the supporters of his theory dont know enough about physics to even try to put it there, or that they will not include it. Of course, even the wildest pseudo-science can be worth covering here, but to show something is notable pseudo-science it is necessary to show that it is notable.   DGG (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Does the published material referenced on his page not suffice to include him as a notable living person?Avsav (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete A Google scholar search reveals only 8 hits. He exists but isn't very notable for a scholar. Artene50 (talk) 09:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say, don't delete the article, but reword it to explain that he is another fringey new-age nutcase/crackpot with absolutely no academic credibility. Cgwaldman (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as this article does not break any surface WP:NOT policies that I can see. As I have done before, I am quoting WP:FRINGE: no need to crucify this guy just because he seems like some crackpot.  I believe that in the spirit of Wikipedia, an accurate NPOV article stating the theories as "claims" would suffice if Asav can procure one; however, the current article seems to be fine (maybe a bit more tweaking is in order).  I believe that some of Nassim Haramein's paper's actually HAVE been peer-reviewed so there might be some scientific credibility. Also, looking at the criteria for WP:BIO, I say that this article warrants inclusion under this category if the creator suggests it. Ace blazer (talk) 04:00, 29 July 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.