Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nassim Haramein (3rd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Consensus is clearly in favour of deletion, owing to e.g concerns about the reliability of most sources and that the topic hasn't had their research widely covered by reliable sources. In addition, the keep !votes appear to mostly come from single purpose accounts and rely too much on anecdotal and unreliable (Facebook followers) evidence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nassim Haramein

edit
AfDs for this article:
Nassim Haramein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created as an apparent fan biography by users who, going by the talk page, do not seem to understand Wikipedia BLP rules on sourcing. The current version is after serious culling of the bad sourcing; here's (what I think was) the first live version and here's a reference check I did; it was a tissue of primary sources and puffery. A source check finds coverage in non-RSes, but nothing indicating actual RS notability as a physicist or in general terms. Please also check the talk page discussion. David Gerard (talk) 11:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sourcing problems here are insurmountable. While I'd personally heard of him, and think it's an interesting enough case due to his followers, there just hasn't been enough written/reported in secondary sources to make this feasible. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide any reliable source(s) supporting your assertion that, "Nassim Haramein’s theories discussed in many physics meetings and conferences"? And also any reliable source(s) that his work has been "corroborated by the leading physicists such as Stephen Hawking and Leonard Susskind"? If that information can be verified, it could be added to the article, and if not, your argument above becomes irrelevant. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haramein treats nucleons as mini black holes in his holographic mass solution which Hawking has been theorizing about since 1971 https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/mnras/152.1.75 and has since been corroborated by Leonard Susskind (one of the founders of the holographic principle). For instance, in his lecture for ER=EPR, he states “…there is no sharp separation between particles and black holes…” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBPpRqxY8Uw&t=5822s at 1:35:45. Throughout the years, I have followed Nassim Haramein’s work which he has presented at numerous conferences including the American Physical Society and more recently the Royal Society.  Haramein would have been involved in numerous discussions at these physics conferences, which I was privy to some. However, they were informal and so unfortunately there is no record. Therefore, like the other commenters on this discussion for deletion page - all I can offer is my opinion. If my argument is irrelevant than so is that of the other comments in this discussion for deletion page. - 2600:1012:B147:2E9:217B:49FC:B65D:C215 (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may have misunderstood what I meant by providing reliable sources. The lecture by Susskind and the 1971 paper by Hawking are primary sources, from which you have concluded they corroborated Haramein’s theories. This is a synthesis, your own conclusion, not something published by a secondary source stating that theories of Hawking and Susskind agreed with Haramein’s work. It's not that your opinion is irrelevant, but that the conclusions you have drawn are not published by independent, secondary, reliable sources, the standard required here. Without such sources to back your argument, it is irrelevant to the discussion. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's the corroboration that never stops. An endless, perpetual, continuous corroboration. A cosmic background corroboration permeating all of spacetime. You can’t point to it because it’s everywhere. Like the Higgs field. It's a remarkable phenomenon. :/ Bobathon71 (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A retrocausal corroboration that reaches back in time to 1971, forming a closed timelike curve that no heretical opinions can interrupt. XOR'easter (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harameins work is published in peer review science journals - to be published in peer reviewed science journals you have to pass peer review which means your work is validated by other scientists with PhDs. For science to be valid and relavent that is the criteria ... whether you agree or not is irrelavent. These references were included in the original article. Obviously not all scientists will have wiki pages, only scientists who are also notable - which Nassim Haramein is. This is evident by the amount of articles, books and movies that Nassim is either mentioned in or has contributed too.-2600:1012:B12C:9BCB:11B2:4059:531F:CC04 (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating my comment below: in 15 years of research, Haramein has had only one paper pass formal peer review, and that was published by this group. None of his work appears in any of the huge sources of trusted content that physicists use. When I say huge, I mean millions of articles. Pretty much every graduate student has work on here. For work of the significance Haramein claims, this is a very low bar. – Bobathon71 (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reliable sources were found and added to this article since it was originally AfD. He was the cover story on both referenced magazine articles, which are detailed articles on his life and theory. His film broke crowdfunding records, and was consequently positively reviewed in multiple independent well-known publications. - Joe science (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In physics, talking about one's work at a conference means almost nothing. The currency of the science is publications in journals, not APS talks. (Also, the "ER=EPR" conjecture is both speculative and completely different from what Haramein has been saying, despite the use of a few terms in common.) Furthermore, as was discussed at the AfD for the documentary, the claim that the film broke any records is press-release-parroting and untrue. XOR'easter (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Patrick Stewart Narrating New Documentary 'The Connected Universe'". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 2017-09-03.
  2. ^ "Vancouver documentary breaks crowdfunding record on Indiegogo". The Globe and Mail. 2015-02-04. Retrieved 2017-09-03.
    • I find it hard to draw a line between documentaries and biopics; a claim to notability should be based on sounder stuff than narrowly specific superlatives. And even if we take the "best funded documentary at Indiegogo" claim at face value, why should setting a record at one particular time with one particular fundraising platform count? Over at KickStarter, Bill Nye got $859,425 the same year. As I said above, I did find the film's case for notability stronger than the person's, but ultimately, I wasn't sold on that either. XOR'easter (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who is saying his notability is riding on a single claim? It's one of many indications that Nassim's work has reached a wide audience. The fact that the film was reviewed in multiple prominent publications is indication of the same (and of notability, it is of course an exposé of his life's work). It's just another bullet point, along with (but not limited to) the numerous magazine articles, features/forewards in books, and features in various documentary films that Haramein has. - Joe science (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just the point that The Bill Nye Film (2015-07-13) is more recent than The Connected Universe which crowdfunding campaign started in December 2014. You quoting this film on kickstarter don't change the claim about The Connected Universe being the most funded documentary at this time.OlivierR (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC) — OlivierR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
        • I was not claiming that his notability was "riding on a single claim"; I was discussing the notability of the documentary itself, since the supposed success of that film had been invoked. XOR'easter (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject does not meet WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR or WP:CELEBRITY. What we're left with is something of a WP:FRINGEBLP and, according to that criteria, there do not seem to be the independent, reliable sources that indicate Haramein has made the notable mark necessary for Wikipedia to be able to have a decent article about him. These are difficult cases because there are a lot of fans and followers who have generated content about him on various platforms, but they fail our WP:RS tests for what we would need to write a decent article. jps (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This expresses my position better than I did. Thank you. XOR'easter (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Your claim about "fans and followers" can apply on fan website and blogs like the one of bobathon. And it is true, there are a lot of them because this new theory inspires a lot of peopel. But it is not about these sources. The WP:RS used in this articles are magazines like Nexus or Face the Current, webTV like Gaia, TedX talk [1], mainstream films like Thrive or The Connected Universe or for well knonwn journalist like Bob Bellanca [2]. There are plenty WP:RS to write a pretty decent and interesting article based only on facts. Stop trying to censure and stay on the facts. OlivierR (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regardless of the content of his work, it seems as though his documentary and work has been recognized by multiple mainstream outlets and publications. I looked up his Facebook page which has almost 700,000 followers and the Facebook page for his science foundation which has almost 800,000 followers, seems pretty notable to me. I don't understand why he shouldn't be allowed a biography page. Poolshark9 (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC) poolshark9 — Poolshark9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep The Intelligent Optimist and Face the Current are both detailed exposes of his work, and compeletely relevant to a biographical page on Haramein. Both articles can be found with minimal googling to verify. His film has been widely recognized and broke records through crowdfunding. Further, BobAThon has been in a personal 'adversarial' relationship with the subject Nassim Haramein for about 10 years. This is not a personal attack, this is just public knowledge at this point. If you google Nassim Haramein BobAthon this will be immediately obvious.
He holds the main source of 'debunking' material for Nassim's work, with no obvious expertise, and has continued to follow Nassim's work on the internet wherever it shows up. You can see that BobAthon has even used his own blog as a source for Nassim's work being pseudoscience on the comments that started the conversations for this takedown, under the Physics Project page. -Jediblade (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC) — Jediblade (talk) • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: Two single purpose accounts (Jediblade, OlivierR) = one person = one !vote: see this evidence. - DVdm (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DVdm, What are you talking about? I was just trying to put some formatting to the text... Don't accuse someone of something if you have not some valid and serious proof!OlivierR (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion that Wikipedia editors might be swayed by an obscure anonymous blog is rather unrealistic. It badly underestimates the expertise of the people making decisions here. I've never advocated my blog as a source anywhere on Wikipedia, and I haven't brought it up or linked to it anywhere near this page. I don't consider Haramein to be a personal adversary – that's pathetic. I was fascinated by his physics claims and how many people thought they were genuine, and I wrote some posts about them in 2010 (none before, none since). I've looked quite deeply into his papers and I feel able to shed some light on his claims. If I feel it's helpful and relevant in a discussion then there's nothing wrong with linking to points I've already made to save re-hashing them. As noted I haven't even done that here. It's a bit twisted to try to portray me as misleading people or as being some kind of instigator of skepticism. Let's credit experienced people with the ability to think for themselves. – Bobathon71 (talk) 11:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Bobathon, since 2010 you are posting all over the web trying to discredit Nassim Haramein work. The only problem is that you clearly don't understand the physics behind this paper. You fail understanding the physic (and it is possible to forgive you on this point because it is quite a complex subject) but the problem is that you concentrate your effort on personal attacks on Nassim Haramein and all his work. The best part is when you are moking the black hole theory like it is an absurdity while in the main time Susskind it's nearly telling everyone that particles are black holes. And everyone will understand that Susskind understand way better the physics than you do. The only surprising fact is that you haven't yet be sued for defamation and slandering... OlivierR (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've never "moked" the idea of particles being black holes, and I have no interest in personal attacks on Haramein. I've never met the guy. What I have criticised is his theory that protons have a mass of 855 million tonnes (because they... don't...), the idea that they have an event horizon with a radius of 1.3fm (when experiments have been routinely probing their internal structure on far smaller scales for decades), the idea that you can model the motion of two black holes whose event horizons are touching using Newton's law of gravity (because black holes have any meaning outside of GR, and ignoring GR in that scenario is unbelievably silly), and so, so, so, so many other incompetent, idiotic things that Haramein claimed just in that one paper. If he wants to take that personally, that's up to him, but I'm talking about the ideas in the paper. If you prefer the story that his work is too wonderful for people like me to understand then please, by all means, stick with that. – Bobathon71 (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Agreed, it's interesting you claim to have no consideration of Nassim since your blog post 7 years ago yet there's proof of your constant monitoring of Nassim all over the internet. For instance this simple biographical wiki page that you are so fervently fighting to be taken down. I read your blog. If you're so interested in letting people think for themselves then let them... what make you such an expert on the subject anyway? Do you hold a degree in physics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poolshark9 (talk • contribs)
If you criticise a pseudoscientist, their fans and apologists can't resist trying to make the person behind the criticism the focus of the discussion. I don't know why this is, but it's almost universal. So, er, what did you just claim I said? And what did I actually say? Grow up. Talk about the subject under discussion if you have anything to contribute. Bobathon71 (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Person does not meet notability criteria. Blatant promotion of person and work (obviously by an IP, two newly created usernames, and one single purpose account). - DVdm (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Google score is pretty high, higher than some Nobel physicist so the argument of blatant promotion is quite absurd. But yet Google score and Facebook audience are not notability criteria. But there are many facts showing valid notability: two mainstream films crediting Nassim Haramein work (Thrive, and The Connected Universe), more than 9 publications with collaboration with known physicist, multiple interviews by very well known journalist (Lilou Macé [3] and Bob Bellanca [4]), on the web TV Gaia ([5]) and also multiple article in mainstream journal (Face the Current April 2017, and Nexus [6]). So talking about no notability criteria is quite a joke.OlivierR (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is an open-minded place. It is all about sharing and not about censorship. Nassim Haramein is a controversial physicist but he has notability. His work has been criticized and peer-reviewed (read the peer-review), films have been made about his theory (one featuring Sir Patrick Stewart![7]), papers in various journal were written about his work (Face the Current April 2017, and Nexus [8]) and he was interviewed at multiple time by well known journalist. A Wikipedia page isn't a war zone and it is not about personal attacks. Wikipedia is ONLY about facts! OlivierR (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)— OlivierR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment Publication of one paper — in a journal so obscure we don't have an article for it — is not nearly enough to satisfy WP:PROF. XOR'easter (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Nassim Haramein has nine publication, not only one and some of them were written with Elizabeth A. Rauscher, a well known physycist [9]. He is not an academic and don't satisfy WP:PROF but he clearly satisfies WP:BIO looking at all his work as physicist researcher (he found a non-profit organization 501c3 committed to advancing the research), inventor (he has 4 patents [10]), speaker and entrepreneur (creation of a startup [11]) and looking at all the third source talking about all this work (film, webTV, magazine, interviews, etc.). OlivierR (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well in 15 years of research, Haramein has had only one paper pass formal peer review, and that was published by these people. None of his work appears in the huge sources of trusted content that physicists use. When I say huge, I mean millions of articles. Pretty much every graduate student has work on here. It's a low bar. – Bobathon71 (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As was pointed out above, Nassim has co-written papers that appear in Elizabeth Rauscher's Selected Works. But that's irrespective of the fact that at the very least he very clearly passes notability for WP:BIO - Joe science (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable (neither as a physicist, nor as an entrepreneur, nor as a celebrity, or whatever). The "record-breaking" indiegogo documentary claim keeps coming up but is based on a misunderstanding of the globe&mail article, which was describing the highest-funded documentary that was actively in progress at the time of the writing, as opposed to the highest-funded to date. The claim that it was the highest-funded to date is supported by no other sources, and indeed is false. It is true only if you cheat by choosing the boundary between non-fiction movie and documentary so as to arbitrarily rule out all the higher-funded documentaries, as is done in the conversation above. Also, as a physicist, I find it highly misleading to say that Stephen Hawking, Leonard Susskind, are even working in the same field of inquiry as him. It is true and uncontroversial that there is no sharp line between a microscopic black hole and an elementary particle (according to string theory). But he did not invent that idea or do anything to advance it, as far as I understand. Just as there is a world of difference between yelling "Time and space are the same!" and actually inventing and justifying and understanding relativity theory, similarly there is a world of difference between saying "black holes are particles" and actually developing the theory that makes the notion meaningful and correct and leads to further insights. --Steve (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I honestly don't understand this argument about a 'misleading claim'. The claim is and has always very clearly been the highest indiegogo funded documentary (obviously at the time of the articles). These aren't claims of Haramein, or of his supporters, or of a Facebook page, but self-evident claims of well known secondary sources. That's why they are cited. - Joe science (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand not everyone has the physic level to understand the subject. But not understanding something don't allow you to freely decredit the work of others. Haramein actually is "developing the theory that makes the notion meaningful and correct and leads to further insights". If you take the time to read the abstract of his nine papers, you would understand that. If you don't have the scientific knowledge to understand the meaning of all these equations, don't go around insulting the work of someone else. And YES, "Stephen Hawking, Leonard Susskind, are even working in the same field of inquiry as him". So do many others researchers. An Unified Field Theory has yet to be fine and it represents a huge enterprise. It won't be done easily but you seem not to be aware of that. OlivierR (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nassim_Haramein_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1138113821"