Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rainer W. Kühne (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Rainer W. Kühne

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Failing notablity (WP:PROF). Search on Web of Science returns 11 published articles over the period 1991-2002 with a max. 19 citations per article (very low). No hits on Google Books. Google search returns mostly blogs and wiki-echoes. His Atlantis theory caused a quick media stir, but I see no reliable (scientific) source confirming it is notable, and it sounds odd that a theoretial physicists starts seriously reinterpreting Plato and archeology. In summary, there is no doubt that he is not a notable physicist. The question is whether he managed to become media-notable, as a scientist who speculated about Atlantis. I guess not, and that WP:NOT and WP:1E do apply here. Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not pass WP:Prof or WP:Fringe. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete as it does not appear to pass wp:prof. Nergaal (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete fails notability per WP:PROF. In addition, WP:NOT is also applicable. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 05:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete With all of the references being from the individual in question, the policy is to delete. I might change my mind if someone could locate sources that meet WP:RS criteria. HeartSWild (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep Kuhne's Atlantis work has been reported by Scientific American, National Geographic, New Scientist, Time, BBC, ABC. Obviously, these media think that his work is relevant enough to be reported. Why should Wikipedia come to a different conclusion? — Careful Media Research (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This appears as a media echo of a single event (all are news articles). How about acceptance (of a scientific theory) in the scientific world? Materialscientist (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not know whether Kuhne's theory is accepted in the scientific world or not. But Wikipedia has a number of entries about people whose ideas are not accepted by scientists, e. g. Charles Berlitz Immanuel Velikovsky Einstein–Cartan–Evans theory Werner Wickboldt. Only the first two of them are authors of books. Only one of them (Velikovsky) is/was a professor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Careful Media Research (talk • contribs) 13:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Spanish archaeologists headed by Prof. Sebastian Celestino perform an archaeological excavation to verify the Atlantis theory of Kuhne. The (preliminary) result seems positive. I used a babelfish translation for the El Pais article.


 * El Pais (possible discovery of Tartessos-Atlantis, 2010)


 * That doesn't give a translation, but the relevant bit says "Most scientific distance is taken with the possible belief that Atlantis is under Hinojos Marshes. That the city described by Plato, silver doors and circular organization, had sunk without trace in Doñana is described by Spanish investigators as nonsense or, more soft, "hard to believe."" Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I vote for Strong keep Worldwide media attention is a sufficient argument that Rainer W. Kühne is kept. A team of archaeologists examines his Atlantis theory since 2005. The scientists of the CSIC have published the results of their work in the annual Resultados de la Investigacion en el Espacio Natural de Donana (2005: p. 117; 2006: pp. 105-108; 2007: pp. 67-73; 2008: pp. 42-48).

http://www.ebd.csic.es/Website1/Parque/Documentos/Resultados2005.pdf http://www.ebd.csic.es/Website1/Parque/Documentos/Resultados2006.pdf http://www.ebd.csic.es/Website1/Parque/Documentos/Resultados2007.pdf http://www.ebd.csic.es/Website1/Parque/Documentos/Resultados2008.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anton Ehrlich (talk • contribs) 14:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC) — Anton Ehrlich (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Reports in Popular Scientific Magazines
Scientific American National Geographic New Scientist EARSEL Newsletter NyTeknik GEO Galileu

Reports in Magazines
Time Liberoreporter Der Stern Profil Svenska Magasinet Focus

Reports in Newspapers
El Pais (possible discovery of Tartessos-Atlantis, 2010) (Daily) Telegraph Daily Excelsior IOL The Epoch Times Die Welt Berliner Morgenpost Hamburger Abendblatt Die Presse Wochenblatt Aftenposten Dagbladet Vjesnik El Mundo El Pais (first report) El Pais (second report)  Planet Hürriyet Aksam Gazetesi Origo Evenimentul Zulei Bosanska Kostajnica Bild-Zeitung Milliyet Wales Online Sabah Radikal El Periodico de Aragon La Voz de Galicia Star Gazete La Voz El Periodico Mediterraneo ABC (Spain)

Reports in Radio and Television
BBC ABC (Australia) Radiotelevisione Italiana ORF BBC Mundo (first report) BBC Mundo (second report) Cesky Rozhlas Radio Praha TV2 MTV3 Polskie Radio BBC Brasil (first report) BBC Brasil (second report) BBC Polish TF1 NTVMSNBC
 * Delete or merge to Marisma de Hinojos per WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2010 (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.