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 G4 and salted  Jclemens (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Nassim haramein

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

I don't know enough about physics to understand Haramein's writing, but he appears to be a writer of fringe science. This would not, in itself, make him a non-notable person, but the article cites only Haramein's own web site, and while I found self-promotion, YouTube videos, and assorted blogs discussing him, I wasn't able to verify that he meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for scholars, or to find reliable sources that discussed him in depth. The article is written in such a biased way that it will require a complete rewrite, but I was not able to attempt such a rewrite due to the dearth of sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm not sure a Gscholar search of full name is fair but I tried last name + things like Einstein. He does seem to have some APS conference papers, at least one or two circa 2001( let me check date now, I've gotten mixed up ), but everything else is either his own site or such prestigious places as mindspring- did Mythbusters ever cover him? The nature of the claims suggest he should have gotten significant in-field coverage/debate if not some sciam/nytimes articles at least one or two referreed journal articles. I'm no expert on relativity or related matters but unification last I remember is an open and important outstanding issue. I didn't check for notability due to being a notable fringe but since you expressed concern about the physics my quick check didn't show literature consistent with his claims. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 249k ghits: on exact name,LOL. Almost all the usual suspects- blogs, twitter, social sites etc. Does someone have a script to register you with all these using the same name? I've noticed I personally get about 52k hits on my name just from accumulated mail list posts ( " I downloaded your widget and it doesn't work, what is wrong?") mirrored on 100's of sites but still... If he is a notable fringe I would ask supporters to pickout some worthwhile sources. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete and salt Obvious G4, see previous deletion debate. --Crusio (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete and salt per G4, also per my reasoning last time around at the previous deletion debate. 23:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Fringe drivel, less than twenty GS cites, most from APS local meetings which are famous (or notorious or charitable) for letting fringer members have their say (usually at the fag end of a session). As noted above, was deleted after AfD in Sept 2008. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC).
 * NewResult: This new article claims to have a new publication and gotten an award Aug 3+/- 2009. While pons and fleischman may soon discover fusion, and I take it no one here bought the DVD set on the present topic, in any case there is no significant RS of this new breakthrough. I read the old debate, maybe he has learned vectors by now. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete G4 per previous AFD. So tagged. Salt me please. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 23:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete and salt. Second the above motion. Mr. Haramein is certainly persistent and is a consummate self-promoter. Let's see if we appreciate how absurd this article is. It says the subject has successfully solved one of the cornerstone problems of physics, the Unified Field Theory, yet checking WoS using the most liberal criterion, author = haramein n*, we find he has no publications. Strange indeed. What I gather is that we have the same situation as before: a fanciful paper that the author refuses to submit to the physics community for proper review. If he does submit it, it gets published, and it turns out to be what the author claims, then I'm sure he'll have his WP page. With all due respect, I shan't hold my breath. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Comment. I'm reminded of what DGG said in the last go-around on this article: "As I said before, no presence in ArXiv = no notability as a physicist--they'll include even the non-conventional if there is any scientific merit whatsoever". Well, he still has nothing on arxiv. It seems as if we're in the very same position except 1 year later. Also, the creating user seems to be a newly-minted WP:SPA. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC).
 * I do not agree with the statement "no presence in ArXiv = no notability as a physicist" as a hard and fast rule. Many older and well established physicists have not got round to using the ArXiv. However, this has no bearing on the present case. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Point taken and agreed. Rspcty, Agricola44 (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2009 (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.