Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahjat Muhyedeen

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. WP:N requires significant coverage in reliable third party sources to establish notability. As the discussion showed no such sources exist. Ruslik (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bahjat Muhyedeen

Scientist who does not appear to be notable per WP:PROF, possibly because "He disputes the current thinking that the mass and energy are inter convertible." The article is also replete of what I assume to be this scientist's original research, which purports to show that "the uncertainty of Heisenberg became invalid". Sandstein 20:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep with rewriting. Subject seems notable enough, and has been published in at least one journal. I think this article needs a chance to be reviewed by some experts in the field. Vulture19 (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless independent refs to the guys notability are added. Sgroupace (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Guy's main claim to fame is claiming most physicists from last century were wrong, yet he is just a chemist. Martin451 (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and edit. sharply, per undue weight. DGG (talk) 06:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on what grounds of notability? I see no third party coverage. Sandstein 06:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All articles are either published in obscure Iraqi journals or in the equally obscure European Journal of Scientific Research. The latter journal's website proudly proclaims that the journal ranks 43rd in Austria's top 50 journals (according to SCImago), if you look up the rankings, it actually ranks 52nd (I guess they just updated the site to 2007), out of a grand total of 56 journals.... (And why only Austria??). Anyway, his articles do not seem to be published in major journals. And given his claims to have "corrected" the most famous equation in history (E=mc2), if he were anything close to correct, we all would have heard of it. No evidence either that he meets WP:FRINGE. --Crusio (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Crusio above. All scientists publish papers, these are in less than prestigious publications. Fails WP:PROF. Parslad (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete his CV^H^H er... bio, says he's published 36 papers... yet some are listed as imply submitted, and a further more 14 are "in press" with no journal listed, and the rest... well ISI returns no hits for "Muhyedeen B*". Further google searching "Bahjat Muhyedeen" turns up no independent coverage of his controversial views. Article fails both WP:PROF and WP:FRINGE. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Crusio and Pete.Hurd summarize the problem well. Appears to be a fringe theorist with zero notability within his research area.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable per WP:PROF. Dude's "research" is fringe theory junk. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no reliable sources, and clear fringe ideas: "He disputes the current thinking that the mass and energy[2] are inter convertible." Unless there's someone more familiar with the physics community that has heard of him, this should go.--Sloane (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Sloane (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2009 (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.