Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Nassim Haramein (2nd nomination)

Interesting, I have seen a number of pages on wikipedia which seem to be controlled by those who have specific agendas. Maybe you physics classicalists should read some of Harameins latest papers since 2008 (or even prior)? This deletion does not put wikipedia in any kind of good light.

http://scitation.aip.org/proceedings/confproceed/1303.jsp http://www.theresonanceproject.org/pdf/AIP_CP_SProton_Haramein.pdf

I agree, what ever happened to being objective? Even the Rational Wiki page is completely unacceptable. I have always thought that Wiki was good about having pages that consider all sides and is open to discussion even on controversial topics, but I have been wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.44.134.155 (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

So B & C grade actors and musicians can have a page, but not a B or C grade Physicist? Way to go Wikipedia. I guess we should start deleting historical figures that only a few people care about, because they are quite lacking in "notoriety"…FrostyCee (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Historically all new science has been met with ridicule by the reigning "experts". People laughed at Einstein's idea that space warps under gravity, Columbus had to lobby for years against the prevailing belief that the earth is flat just so he could discover, even more recently Hawking bet that the Higgs Boson could not exist. Time and time again these naysayers think their knowledge is the pinnacle of all that can be known when in fact the science they embrace is eventually proven antiquated and wrong. I was disgusted by the Rational Wiki page which essentially called me a crackpot-nut-dingbat for being interested in what Nassim Haramein has to say. Nassim Haramein deserves a page. Don Uber Dkossuber (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has undermined its own credibility - something repeatedly called to attention in miriad articles. Nassim Haramein is a global character of interest - whether he is right or wrong in his work - that remains to be seen. It is very easy to inform the public of his bio, academics, age family, hobbies, life experience etc - the least I expected to find when doing a quick check to see who this guy is and what he is doing - again whether it is right or wrong - and time will tell. Wiki is not being asked to make claims for him or argue against him - just report his claims perhaps and issue a disclaimer that none of them have been peer accepted/acknowledged. This kind of Wiki corruption and bias is shameful and a major reason why I will not contribute to funding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.188.122 (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)