Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Hartnett (physicist)

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 no consensus. This has to be closed eventually, and no further progress is being made. The qualifications as a physicist have been shown to be borderline, and the discussion on that point is about which side of the dividing line it fallls, with the arguments using the same data being mainly repeated rounds of "yes he qualifies", and "no he doesn't." To the extent I can judge, the significance as a creationist has been debated similarly. I see few if any of the WP:PROF regulars have wanted to give a keep or delete, because it would be just one more opinion added to the mix. All I thought I could usefully add was one technical point, and if I were forced to choose between keep or delete, I 'm not at all sure which way by own voice would fall. Similar people have been kept or deleted about half the time each. If thought worthwhile to continue this, I'd strongly suggest waiting a few months. In the meanwhile, it would help to make the strongest article--strong in the sense of reasonable cited non-exagerated statements.

 DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

John Hartnett (physicist)

John Hartnett (physicist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't turn up any reliable sources establishing notability. Hartnett has apparently published some papers in peer-reviewed journals, and he is cited now and then on creationwiki and CMI, but not prominently, and neither is a reliable source for the purposes of WP:N.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Note Please also check his UWA profile, which outlines a few awards he's received, his two patents and one book. I don't believe these alone are enough to meet the GNG, particularly due to lack of further sourcing elsewhere, or a claim of notability in the UWA profile, but it's the best source we have right now.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete: No evidence for notability either as a physicist or a creationist.
  • As a physicist: has been a tenured professor for only two years. A h-index of 12 is about what is expected for a new professor; nothing out of the ordinary. A Google search turned up nothing in the way of third-party reporting indicating sufficient notability beyond that expected for a two-year professor; nothing remarkable. Awards are not out of the ordinary. Does not meet any of the criteria listed in WP:PROF.
  • As a creationist:
    • In-universe: Rather scant reports from in-universe sources, mostly low grade. His book shows very little evidence of having had significant impact inside he creationist community. Google hits are mostly to reviews and in-universe blogs and forums. Nothing that indicates that he is in the top, second or even third tier of the creationist community.
    • Independent: Practically no mention in independent sources, all of which are blogs and forums, at best. No evidence that his book has received any attention outside the creationist community. In fact, no evidence for notability as a creationist outside of the creationist community at all. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The subject does not meet the academic notability guidelines, however he does meet the general notability guidelines and the biography notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. See my comment on your vote below. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Pls. advise what you mean under the weasel words "creationist community". CMI is arguably the most prominent YEC community (I'm not aware of any comparable journal to the Journal of Creation of theirs), and as a such cites Hartnett quite frequently IMHO and the fact that they devoted DVD to his discussion with R.Humphreys on creationist cosmology theories ("For the first time, two of the world’s leading creationist cosmologists share the same stage and discuss each other’s models that seek to explain how distant starlight, allegedly millions of light years away, could reach the earth within a 6,000 year-old Creation. The answers appeal to understandable, known science that is also revealing that the secular cosmological models of the big bang is increasingly becoming untenable. It’s an exciting time for creationist cosmology.") suggests that these two are actually nowadays the most prominent creationist cosmologist. If he is not notable then I really cannot imagine who else should be. ("In the Middle of the Action" Dr John Hartnett; Hubble, Bubble: Big Bang in Trouble; Dr. John Hartnett; [1])

As a physicist his papers are used by European Space Agency[2].--Stephfo (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

CMI is notable, but Hartnett is not a leading figure either in CMI Worldwide or CMI Australia. He's listed as a "(part time) speaker and writer".[[3]] With only two books, a dozen articles, a modest number of tracts and blog entries, and a DVD for his own misistry, and very little for other creationist outlets, his writing output is modest. Like I said, in the worldwide creationist community, he's not in the top, second or third tier. Certainly not in the top 100 for the world. In Australia, he MIGHT be second tier, but more likely third tier. I doubt he makes the top 20 for the country. In any case, not prominent enough to be notable as a creationist, even in Australia.

As for his scientific work, it is clearly not out of the ordinary for a second-year associate professor. With a h-factor of only 12, and no extraordinary accomplishments, awards or press coverage, he is very, very far from meeting the requirements of WP:PROF. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Where does it say he is an Associate Professor (Level D)? His university page says he a Research Professor. That is a full Professor (Level E) in Australia. Earlier he was described as "a tenured professor". No academic staff in Australia have tenure, although many have what is called a permanent position, even though there are a wide set of criteria for dismissing them. Also that designation does not start at "Associate Professor", as tenure does in the US. It can start at "Lecturer" (Level B) or even "Tutor" (Level A). He appears to have 150 publications. That counts for something. I'm not sure on this one, but the arguments for deletion are not that strong. I'll settle for a weak keep. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I got that off his by-line at CMI's website, but it seems either erroneous or outdated. His CV on the university website says he has been a "Tenured Research Professor" since 2009. Before that, he was a "Principal Research Fellow". His CV updated one year ago lists:

Thesis: 1

Edited book: 1

Refereed Book Chapters: 6

Refereed Journal Papers: 86

Refereed Conference Papers: 3

Conference Papers: 81

Patents: 2

Web of Science Citation Report: Total citations: 612; Average: 8.15; h-index: 12.

That's a total of 96 refereed publications. That's confirmed here: [[4]]. It probably went up to about 105-110 in the meantime. To me as a biologist, this seems very high, but I have no idea how that compares to other physicists. Publication counts vary wildly from discipline to discipline.

The h-index might have gone up a point or two in the last year, but even at 15 is par for the course for a Research Professor. From our article on h-index:

"Hirsch suggested (with large error bars) that, for physicists, a value for h of about 12 might be typical for advancement to tenure (associate professor) at major research universities. A value of about 18 could mean a full professorship, 15–20 could mean a fellowship in the American Physical Society, and 45 or higher could mean membership in the United States National Academy of Sciences."

Granted, the h-index is not perfect and has it's limitiations, but it's a better indication of impact than the raw citation count, which varies widely from field to field.

He does not have a distinguished professorship or named chair, or the equivalent. He is not a department head, or hold any other high post at the university. He is not a fellow of any prestigious society.

I thought he had it cinched, though, when I noticed the award from the IEEE. However, the award he received is not among the top awards offered by the IEEE, at least as far as I can tell. [[5]]. The otehr awards he have received are not prestigious enough for WP:PROF.

Most disappointing was the almost total lack of press coverage concerning his scientific pursuits. Blogs, newsletters, university press releases, yes. But nothing much in the scientific press, and nothing in the popular press as far as I could determine. Not even in the local press. Nothing that would equal a feature article in a regional or national newspaper.

He's generated more publicity as a creationist, but even here, it's mostly blogs, newsletters, anouncements, book-reviews, and mentions in his own ministry's publications. Again, nothing that would equal a feature article in a regional or national newspaper.

So overall, I have to stick with my assessment. Par for the course for a two-year professor, and at best third or fourth tier for a creationist. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe to claim he is "only" a "(part time) speaker and writer" while being aware that he is employed at University which is his primary employer is quite a nonsense, as under such conditions it is very natural, IMHO. Who is more notable creationist cosmologist in your opinion? --Stephfo (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Add. "Nothing that indicates that he is in the top, second or even third tier of the creationist community." Pls. explain your objective criteria for indication that ceratain creationist cosmologist should be on "the top, second or even third tier of the creationist community", as I regards such words for WP:WEASEL in their current form. Thanx.--Stephfo (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I've explained above in great detail the criteria I used to make my assessment. Read again for the answers to your questions. And NEVER put your posts before other editors in a discussion again, as you did twice now. That was very rude. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The subject has recieved significant coverage in reliable third party sources (for example[6]) and meets the general notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The "significant coverage" of which you speak was published in the subject's own university newsletter, ScienceNetwork WA, which does not qualify as a third party source. The Science Alert newletter you link to is a compilation of articles from university newsletters and press-releases from Australia and New Zealand, and it seems that they are willing to publish any such articles submitted. The article is solely the product of the subjects own university. There is no editorial input or content from the side of Science Alert. In fact, Science Alert refers readers wishing to comment on the article back to the University's web page. I doubt this establishes sufficient notability to satisfy WP:GNG. It appears to be specifically excluded as not independent of the subject. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

But I guess if article was taken by 3rd party entity, then it is already a bit different story, because ScienceAlert is not OWN university: it is the first and only website to cover the whole of Australasian science and to present its announced research outcomes to the public for free. Besides providing the latest news from Australasian universities and research institutions, the service provides quality feature articles and opinions from qualified Australasian scientific and science writers and a specialised scientific jobs directory.--Stephfo (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but no dice. Science Alert did not write an article on him. They posted a university press release on him, without editing or commentary. All of the information originated from his own university. Science Alert is the equivalent of a blog. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I have quite tough time to follow your way of thinking, are you suggesting that CERN Document Server, Foundations of Physics, http://adsabs.harvard.edu, Cornell University Library, International journal of theoretical physics, Foundations of physics, Astrophysics and space science etc. are stupid to notice his research work and papers and WP should be much smarter than them and regard him and his works for unworthy of any attention? Are all of these media related to his own university in your opinion?--Stephfo (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Stepho, those are the journals in which he published his papers, or repository sites of his papers or data. They don't count toward establishing notability. They are not reports ON him, but reports BY him, and thus not independent. As a two-year professor, of course he's going to have published papers in scientific journals. There's nothing unusual about that. All two-year professors have done so. The question is whether his work has made an extraordinary impact in the scientific community. There is no evidence for that. A citations count of 612 and a h-index of about 15 indicate that he does not stand out from the crowd of two-year professors. WP:PROF policy states that we don't do articles on ordinary two-year professors. That's too low on the academic ladder. In five or ten years, he may qualify, but not now. I am not dismissing his work. Quite the contrary. He's clearly a good professor and scientist, just not an outstanding one yet. He deserves recognition, of course, but not his own article on WP. READ THE POLICY: WP:PROF. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but main reason to create this article was not to point out that somebody is an academic. But even if being so, I hope you have read the criteria you are referring to:

• The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
  • Is someone claims that "We show that the best terrestrial artificial clocks substantially exceed the performance of astronomical sources as time-keepers in terms of accuracy (as defined by cesium primary frequency standards) and stability." and scientific community accept such claims and lets given person to construct such clocks at the level of European Space Agency research program, to me it indicated his ideas gained a significant recognition.
  • Also "the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). More than two million people around the globe read our publications, in five languages and on a variety of digital and print platforms. We publish Technology Review magazine, the world’s oldest technology magazine (established 1899)"; If someone accepts a work there, to me it indicates they regard it for notable of beiing mentioned in the the world’s oldest technology magazine.--Stephfo (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
• The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
  • You purposefully vaguely interpret this criterion, in my strong conviction the awards he received are exactly of this sort, academic and international:

• IEEE UFFC Society 2010 W.G. Cady Award, presented at the IEEE Frequency Control Symposium, New Port Beach, California, USA, 2nd June, 2010. The citation reads “For the construction of the ultra-stable cryogenic sapphire dielectric resonator oscillators and promotion of their applications in the fields of frequency metrology and radio-astronomy.”

• The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) (note: he wrote two influential books in creationist community: "this is only the beginning of the exciting implications of this revolutionary book."--Stephfo (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE, there in further:
• The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
  • FYI, the person introduced new concept of creationist cosmology, based on new solution of Einstein's Field Equations, significantly new in having no need for dark matter and dark energy, as it is sourced ("Carmeli’s cosmology fits data for an accelerating and decelerating universe without dark matter or dark energy". CERN document Server.--Stephfo (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, solved the light-travel problem known as horizon problem of creationist cosmologies, as it is reflected in creationist media referred there as breakthrough.--Stephfo (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You are presenting vague accusations on the notability from creationist perspective, but as a matter of fact the most influential YEC community clearly regards him for being one of "two of the world’s leading creationist cosmologists", that means TOP2 should you have problems reading it (note: there has been wrong logic in my argument "two of the world’s leading" does not necessarily mean TOP2, however personally I still believe they are, as otherwise it would not make sense for YEC community to distribute notion on discussion of two cosmologists of theirs if one of them would be below third tier. I believe they have selected TOP2 for such dispute.--Stephfo (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)), not below "the top, second or even third tier" as you would wish for.

pls. seee also: Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of ... other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable.--Stephfo (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Everything you've written confirms my assessment: Par for the course for a two-year professor, and at best third or fourth tier for a creationist. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but if he is at best third or fourth tier, can you reveal your ranking which creationists would supersede him on 1st and 2nd tier? Thanx. --Stephfo (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Top tier means people like Ken Ham, Michael Behe, amd Duane Gish. People who get a lot of attention from both the media and independent scholars of the subject. Of the people who belong to CMI Australia, only Carl Wieland would be in the top tier of creationists worldwide. Don Batten, Tas Walker and David Catchpoole are second tier at best. Everyone else, including Hartnett, is third tier or below. Don't forget that YEC is only one branch of the Creationist movement, CMI is only one part of YEC, and CMI Australia is only one part of CMI Worldwide. Even within CMI Australia, Hartnett is clearly not in the top tier.[[7]] Almost all of his press coverage comes from his own organization, CMI. None of which counts for establishing notability on WP because it is not independent coverage. There's very, very little about him in other creationist media outlets, and what there is is blogs, newsletters, book reviews and the like. There has been practically no mention of his creationist activities in non-creationist media outlets, only a couple of blog-type entries. Sorry, but Hartnett does not qualify as a notable creationist by a long shot. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry again, but what has Behe to do with creation cosmology field? Personally, I never heard about K.Ham. or Wieland and I'm not aware of any influential In my VERY STRONG opinion, creationist cosmology of Hartnett is the ABSOLOUTE TOP within YEC community, TOP2, in fact, together with Humphrey, who alone can be the only creation cosmologist to take TOP1 position, IMHO; sounds absolute oddity that YEC community should call his cosmology a breakthrough and report to his book as revolutionary should you be right that he is creation cosmologist of "3rd tier at the very best. Pls. explain the term "creationist media outlets". As a matter of fact, he clearly qualifies as "The person ... known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" and coverage of his e.g. star light travel problem in Journal of creation (I'm not aware of any other comparable creationist journal) is clear evidence you are wrong, IMHO. His cosmology is directly mentioned in the article on creation cosmologies and thus it makes very much sense that WP reader would have a chance to read about this person who it is. --Stephfo (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You've never heard of Wieland? Great, because you've just proved my case. Wieland is the leader of CMI Australia, in other words, Hartnett's boss. It is not my job to educate you about the creationst movement. That is your responsibility. Since it's clear that you have nothing more to add, I consider this case closed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I really never heard of Wieland and I'm not aware that he would ever come up with any theory in the creationist cosmology field that would be possible to rank him as more influencial in this field than Hartnett. This article is not about administration of institutions but about physicist -creationist cosmologist who writes revolutionary books in this field and makes significant breakthroughs in solving problems in this field.--Stephfo (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete the person doesn't satisfy WP:PROF. As for significant coverage in other reliable sources, there is not significant coverage for an independent article. Their h-index is far less than average for a professor notable in their field. Polyamorph (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Pls. advise why you regard his work in the field of sapphire-based high stability clocks for unworthy of attention. For me it sounds like very interesting topic and I think for other WP readers it might be the same. --Stephfo (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's reliable then it could be cited within an existing wikipedia article on relevant clocks, but isn't give a valid argument for an article on John Hartnett himself.Polyamorph (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

IMHO the recognition of someone's contribution in the science field is by accepting his papers and using them in references in other articles, please explain what's wrong with this: [8] wrt. your sentence "there is not significant coverage for an independent article." Acceptance of something by scientific community means that somebody independent have read it and found it worthy of inclusion into the scientific databases, at the very minimum, and many of google hits on scholar papers show that his articles are used in references, thus contrary to your claim he is covered in reliable sources. Or are you going to suggest that these DBs are unreliable, because, for example, If I wrote an paper on teapot orbiting around Pluto, they would accept it w/o peer-review and even use in further as reference in other articles?--Stephfo (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

He has publications, so does every other academic. The mere fact that he has peer reviewed publications doesn't make him notable. His h-index is relatively poor compared to most academics and not indicative of someone leading or making a significant impact to the field. Polyamorph (talk) 12:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

These are the citation Results from web of knowledge (that I just ran)

Results found: 143

Sum of the Times Cited [?] : 627

Sum of Times Cited without self-citations [?] : 329

Citing Articles[?] : 321

Average Citations per Item [?] : 4.38

h-index [?] : 12

Notice how misleading the h-index is since half of his citations are self-citations! Really I know some postdoctoral fellows who have a better citation record than this, it's not really indicative of someone influencial in their field.Polyamorph (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC) note the overall publications may be slightly higher than his actual publications if there is more than one J G Hartnett, this would only tend to reduce the overall h-index further.

My sentence "there is not significant coverage for an independent article." was referring to the significant coverage outside academia. Since I already stated they fail WP:PROF, they also do not satisfy WP:GNG.Polyamorph (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

But my argument is not that he is notable as PROF (if we are not discussing creationist perspective), that has only secondary meaning and is in a way just coincidence that has nothing to do with fact that his ideas and papers are related to work on sapphire-based high stability clocks arguably regarded as the most stable clock in the universe and you seem to fail to address this argument. I found it notable enough and interesting for common WP reader, please advise why it should harm WP to bring attention to such subject and person that developed and constructs such high-stability clocks. Moreover, please explain if your delete vote is just related to PROF subject, you seem to omit creationist perspective, and my reading then is that you do not oppose notability in that area and do not mind if article will be kept on those grounds, correct? Thankx for explanations.--Stephfo (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

In my above comment I wrote "if [the sapphire-clock article] is reliable then it could be cited within an existing wikipedia article on relevant clocks, but isn't give a valid argument for an article on John Hartnett himself." No I don't think there are grounds for keeping the article from a creationist perspective as there is insufficient notability, this has been discussed in detail above and I don't have anything to add with respect to creationism. I agree with the arguments presented for deletion. Polyamorph (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

If it was discussed in detail pls. let me know what the answer was how Hartnett ranks in the creationist cosmology field, which creationist cosmologist is more notable than him should he be below 3rd tier? Why solution of Einstein's field equation's solving star light travel problem is referred to as breakthrough in your opinion and his book as revolutionary (this directly classifies as "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" - as matter of fact, his theory is considered NEW and BREAKTHROUGH, REVOLUTIONARY) and what other creationist journal should bring it into news if the one that has IMHO the highest circulation is not the right one?

I also regard for weird that IEEE regards his contribution on development of stable clock (more than pulsars) for valid argument to AWARD him for what can be read also as significant new concept (usage of pulsar vs. sapphire-clock terrestrial clock) but WP should regard it as not worth of attention.--Stephfo (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not an expert on creationists so won't comment on that aspect. If he is notable as a creationist then the article should be John Hartnett (creationist) not John Hartnett (physicist). Dominus Vobisdu has already made some pretty valid comments above. Where are the reliable sources that state this author has gained any notoriety whatsoever? Polyamorph (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, should I then change the name? --Stephfo (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I think the current title is correct.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. The citations for his work in physics, while not bad, don't really rise to the level of passing WP:PROF#C1 for me, there is no evidence of passing any of the other WP:PROF criteria, and I don't think he passes WP:GNG for his creationism. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

So pls. explain what would be the objective criteria for you to pass WP:GNG for creationism if coverage in mainstream creationist media is not sufficient.--Stephfo (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Mainstream mainstream media. Like multiple articles in major national newspapers or magazines. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, and Ted Haggard are good examples, as well as (probably) anyone from this category.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Already not important, but I never heard that anybody of them would have found the solution for star light travel problem. Neither of them have wrote any such revolutionary book on New Physics as Hartnett did. --Stephfo (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• PLS. DELETE THIS ARTICLE OF MINE, I DO NOT WANT ANYMORE TO HAVE IT ESTABLISHED. THANKS.--Stephfo (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Fails GNG and PROF. No significant third party coverage to establish notability. N^oformation ^Talk 22:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Searching through Google news archive results I find this [9] gives him ample coverage, he notable for his work. Brief mention of him at another news source [10] "University of Western Australia physics professor and super-clock maker, John Hartnett" and mentions what his team is building. A notable professor based on the coverage his work gets. Google news search doesn't cover all scientific publications of course, so more about him is surely out there. Dream Focus 23:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The first source you mention is from the newsletter of his own university (discussed above), and the second source gives him only three paragraphs in a long article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

[11] states that a television show on God TV mentions covers his work in Starlight, Time and the New Physics. "Dr John Hartnett sets out to explain light-years in an earth that is not billions of years old, with some eye-opening explanations." So he has gotten coverage on at least one television show. His work surely gets covered in Christian news, magazines, and shows. Dream Focus 10:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

God TV did not cover Hartnett. The program you mention was not produced by God TV. God TV just aired a documentary that was produced by Creation Ministries International, of which Hartnett is a member. All but one of the other people mentioned in that section of the article are members of CMI: Tas Walker and Carl Wieland, Gary Bates, Jonathan Safarti, Phillip Bell, David Catchpoole and John Sanford. Sorry, but a documentary produced by his own organization cannot be considered an independent source, and the fact that God TV aired it does not establish any notability for Hartnett.

I'm sorry, but even within the Christian and creationist media, there is very little third-party mention of Hartnett. He is rarely mentioned except in material published by his own organization, and what little there is is low-grade: blogs, book reviews, announcements, and the like. Nothing like a feature article in a widely read news source. Very far from meeting WP requirements for notablility. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"only three paragraphs in a long article"? That makes him notable. The size of the rest of the article isn't relevant. And who made the documentary isn't relevant. Someone independent to them showed it on their station. He was featured enough in it to count towards his notability. Dream Focus 15:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Three paragraphs qualifies as scant mention, at best. God TV contributed nothing to the material present. They just aired it. It cannot even be argued that the documentary was chosen because it considered Hartnett notable. It was chosen because it was produced by CMI Australia. And the only reason Hartnett was in it is because he is a member of CMI Australia. Having a non-independently produced documentary aired on a minor TV station that even among Christians is considered fringe does little to bolster Hartnett's notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep  Wikipedia:Notability (academics) states,

• An alternative standard, "the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor" is often cited. This criterion has the advantage of being concise though it is not universally accepted. Determining the notability of an average professor is difficult in itself and usually relies on one of the nine more detailed criteria above. When used, this criterion is generally applied to indicate that a tenured full or associate professor in a high ranking institution in the US, or equivalent rank elsewhere, is above the average.

We have a full professor (or the Australian equivalent) that based on academics alone as a member of the Frequency Standards and Metrology research group may or may not rise to be more notable than the "average college instructor/professor", but given his additional status as a rare creationist cosmologist, his story is of significance to the readers of Wikipedia.  The very length of this AfD debate verifies this interest.  Additional notability (attracting attention) comes from being a speaker.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a strange argument. To my understanding, you're making three claims: You've said that simply because he is a creationist, that makes him more worthy of an article than if he was not a creationist; you've said that since a few people have participated in this AfD, that makes him more worthy of an article than subjects with fewer AfD participants; you've said that he has attracted attention, but the discussion above has been unable to turn up any significant attention in reliable sources, and you haven't furnished any of your own. Have I misunderstood you? These criteria you've outlined are not typical for judging notability, and if applied, I think they'd be fairly disastrous for wikipedia.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the previous post has taken my language out of context, I didn't say "creationist", I said "rare creationist cosmologist".  And yes, it is not me saying that, it is throughout our notability guidelines that notability is the sum of whatever elements we have that contribute to notability, so Hartnett gains notability from being a physicist, and Harnett gains notability from being a creationist cosmologist.  This was the main point of my post, using WP:PROF.  The second point regarding AfD participation attributes things I never said.  And saying that the discussion above "has been unable to turn up any significant attention" is not matched by the general tone of the discussion above, which agrees that sources exist both for Hartnett the physicist, and Hartnett the creationist cosmologist.  Here is a 2007 essay by an MIT cosmologist, who names Harnett as one of five creationist-cosmologist book authors, and then says, "Most of their books have a sales rank on amazon.com an order of magnitude better than the one I wrote about postwar physics."  WP:CORP identifies that one of the definitions of wp:notability is "attracting attention".  Unscintillating (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Unscintillating makes no valid argument. No way is this person more notable than the average college instructor/professor, they are far less than average and wikipedia is not a crystal ball so what they might become in the future is of no concern to us right now. Most professors will have numerous news sources on themselves and their work. Academically they are not worthy of inclusion, particularly since their citation record is nothing special n the first place and skewed by self-citations. No one has provided any valid sources to indicate notability. And since when was the length of an AfD an indication of notability! Polyamorph (talk) 06:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The previous post uses the phrase "no valid argument" but no evidence is given, "crystal ball" with no link, "most professors" with no references given....John Hartnett, in addition to being a respected physicist known worldwide both for his work with ultra-precise clocks and his opposition to the "big bang" theory, is also a favorite of the worldwide creationist community (see creationwiki webpage, and conservapedia webpage).  I also agree with DreamFocus that he passes WP:GNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You want a link? How about this WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL! This is wikipedia POLICY, you can't have an article on the off chance it might become notable at some time in the future. Per WP:BURDEN the burden is on you not me to provide the evidence. http://creationwiki.org and http://conservapedia.com don't pass as reliable sources. As for passing GNG, you can agree with Dreamfocus all you like, but they're well known for wanting to keep any old crap on this resource. Without the evidence you have zero argument. Polyamorph (talk) 09:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that WP:BURDEN says no such thing. StAnselm (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It states "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Hence the burden is on the author of the article or those who wish to keep the article to provide the evidence that the author is notable. No such evidence has been provided. Polyamorph (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Polyamorph, WP:V, which contains WP:BURDEN, is a part of content policy, see WP:N#NNC.  As the nutshell at WP:N states, "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article."  As StAnselm said, "WP:BURDEN says no such thing."  Unscintillating (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't provided any evidence to demonstrate notability. I don't care if you think I've directed people to the wrong guidleine or not, you need to provide some substantial evidence if your claim that the person is notable is to hold any weight whatsoever.Polyamorph (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

[12] He is an "Associate Professor (the equivalent of Reader in the UK which would be Full Professor in the USA)". Dream Focus 10:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Lucky him, how does that make him notable? An associate professor at the same university that he obtained both his undergraduate and postgraduate degree is not very impressive either. He obtained his undergraduate degree in 1973 but didn't get his PhD until 2001, yet we're expected to believe his a leader of his field? There is no evidence to suggest he is and no reliable sources have been provided to indicate that this person has done anything sufficiently notable to have an entire wikipedia page devoted to them. Their research may be notable and can be included in some relevant articles I'm sure. I know plenty of readers, associate and full professors, none of whom have their own wikipedia page. If their job is a valid criterion for inclusion then we should just start writing a wikipedia page for every single academic in every single university around the world. Polyamorph (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I want to stay consistent with my position to withdraw the article in situation when there is no interest to the topics I personally found interesting, but I have to comment on accusation "He obtained his undergraduate degree in 1973 but didn't get his PhD until 2001" because I regard it for blow below the belt. In one interview with him available in print from creationist conference he is explaining why he decided to enter the PhD program after ca 20 years and it definitely was not because he would have intellectual problems to make it earlier, IMHO.--Stephfo (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that he would have had intellectual problems to make it earlier, only that he didn't get his PhD until 2001...Polyamorph (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You stated "No way is this person more notable than the average college instructor/professor". I showed that he was, having a title that ranks him above that. "Full professor is the highest rank that a professor can achieve". I'm not making a case on him based on that though, just showing a link to clarifying his status. The coverage I found in the above section is all that is needed to prove his notability. Dream Focus 12:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not the highest rank one can achieve by a long shot, he's just a normal member of academic staff with nothing really to distinguish him from the rest. Polyamorph (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete - Lacks the needed significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what kind of sources are these: [13](narrowing selection --Stephfo (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)), and for my future better understanding. Thanks for explanation. --Stephfo (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Not the same guy, except maybe the first one. Second source is "Zoltan Hartnett", Third is "Derek Harnett", Fourth is "John G Hartnett", Fifth is "John Locke", etc. If there's a specific source you want to discuss, you should present it alone. Linking to google search results is often unhelpful.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Naturally, google search gives you first the best hits for defined phrase, and then it goes for standalone words of that phrase. Your problem is maybe to realize this and go for first hits, not when google start to pick up whatever correlated comes across.

[14], [15], [16]; [17] [18] [19] I'm not saying it is hundreds, but he definitely is covered in the creationist literature, IMHO.--Stephfo (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You provided a link to a google search predominantly littered with irrelevant results. I asked you to link to specific books. Responding that I have "a problem" using google is silly; you provided the link. The books you've listed now do say that he exists, yes, but most don't discuss him at all in detail. One only includes a quote from him without any discussion whatsoever. Another says he disagrees with dark matter and then moves on to another topic immediately. I don't know how useful these are. Do you have significant independent coverage? In other words, something that talks about him for more than a few words.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Promotional article written with the intent to to burnish the credentials of creationists. The article creator is attempting to push a biography to continue his ongoing fundamentalist Christian crusade against science. The person is clearly not notable failing WP:PROF rather dramatically and being consigned to the general dregs of the fringe creation science community that lives off the teat of Answers in Genesis. We don't need to have a Wikipedia article about every creationist &mdash only the ones who receive serious independent third-party notice which this guy does not have. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:SOAP above. Subject as an individual at best dubiously meets applicable notability guidelines. John Carter (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep notable individual as per WP:GNG. The fact that some of his views run contrary to accepted science means should be noted in the article, not used as a reason to delete the article. JORGENEV 13:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Where is the significant coverage then that establishes notability? Because thus far no sources have been provided that prove this individual is notable as either a physicist or as a creationist. No sources have been provided which satisfy WP:BIO, our guideline for articles on specific individuals. Some trivial references have been given but per WP:BIO "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". Some primary sources have also been given but again per WP:BIO "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject". Polyamorph (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep: total up the mentions and we're left with a solid case for notability. From WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." – Lionel ^(talk) 12:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The scant mention he receives in independent sources is far too trivial to add up to even an article in a local newspaper. In fact, not even an article in an independent Christian or creationist periodical. Brief announcements, a few mostly promotional book reviews, and a few blog entries are not worth very much. Outside of CMI and his own university, nobody much has seemed to even notice him, never mind be interested enough to write about him. A hill of nothin' is still nothin'. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to get the grasp of your line of reasoning, how do you explain yourself that CERN server, Foundations of Physics, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Astrophysics and Space Science, ScienceNetwork WA, VerticalNews. etc. have published his papers and give attention to him or why European Space Agency started to cooperate with him if outside of his University nobody have noticed him, you seem to contradict yourself, IMHO. Moreover, do you proclaim that God TV is run by CMI (In two highly informative programmes, ... and in ‘Starlight, Time and the New Physics’ Dr John Hartnett sets out to explain light-years in an earth that is not billions of years old, with some eye-opening explanations.)? Strange expectation...More over, he has 18 entries in TrueOrigin archive, creationist' variant of TalkOrigin archive that is commonly used at Wikipedia and regarded as established reliable source. If nobody of creationists seem to notice him, why they gave him so much room?--Stephfo (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

1) Articles writen BY Hartnett and published in scientific journals do not count towards establishing notability. Only articles ABOUT him do. This has been explained to you several times by several different different editors.

2) Material produced by Hartnett's university or CMI do not count toward establishing notability. Those sources are not independent.

3) I never said that God TV was run by CMI.

4) True.origin archive is a very poor quality blog that is itself not notable. It is not considered reliable on WP, and is not used as a source. The article on it was deleted twice [[20]] and [[21]] for being not notable.

5) Harnett has received very little notice in the creationist community outside of CMI. There is no evidence that his writings or books have had any significant impact. There has never been a feature-level article about him in any creationist publication except Creation Journal, which is published by CMI, and is thus not independent. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

1.) We seem to have different perception how science works. IMHO, for scientist it is not important to read about a person, which pub he is going for beer in the evening etc., but what matters is the content that he produces and then the notability of his work is given in fact that they can build up on his/her papers and make their own scientific research. As I already mentioned, I doubt that all these subjects we mentioned like CERN server etc. would accept paper written by me e.g. on topic of teapots orbiting around Pluto, on the contrary I'm pretty much sure such paper would not make it to get there. If papers of someone else make it, that means he is notable of such act.

All scientists publish in scientific journals, the science that is published is indeed often very notable. The scientist themselves, however, is not notable for wikipedia purposes, unless their research activity begins to bring them some personal notoriety. Polyamorph (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

And this personal notoriety is proven by fact that journalist approach him and cite him when writing about e.g. topic of sapphire clock, for example (otherwise they would go for someone else who would they regard for more notable to be consulted in given subject), or when creationists chose his opinions to be presented in their TV or invite him for being speaker at their conferences.--Stephfo (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

2.) I agree that these sources are not independent, on the other hand, first of all, there are other sources who are writing about him, and then Technical Journal and Creation are the only Journals I'm personally aware of as notable out of production by creationists, and if someone is selected there to me it implies he has been peer-reviewed and found notable for this community.

3.) I agree you never said a God TV was run by CMI, but the nature of the Q was to show you that CMI is not the only one source noticing Hartnett to exist as creationist cosmologist, what you seem to be trying to promote. Creationists do not have that many media in hands to expect larger coverage than the one that already is there.

4.) The nature of argument was not to discuss the acceptability of True.Origin by WP, but showing that creationists give huge volume of room to Hartnett and are aware of his influence in the field. That's the fact contrary to your claim that he gained just scant coverage by them. Your answer in no way addresses this point. Moreover, if the True.Origin should be negligible, it is then strange that Talk.Origin who are already accepted source are debating with them and even providing hyperlinks to their archive in particular debates. That proves Tru.Origin is notable community within creationist movement, in fact to such degree that Talk.Origin people choose them as creationist representatives to have debate with [A Creationist Rebuts this FAQ] and exchange the dispute opinions with.

5.) The media nowadays go electronic, as I already mentioned, I'm not aware of any creationist media that would have comparable circulation to journal creation and the coverage is in my strong opinion proportional to the extent the creationist community is able to produce given the year of publication of his theoretical new concepts and volume of media they have available. --Stephfo (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete I concur with Dominus Vobisdu's well researched and well reasoned arguments. --MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

---

• Keep I think meets wp:notability. Many wp:notability related sources and references, numerous published works. North8000 (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

As above his published works are not an indication of notability, especially since many of the citations are from the author himself. Please provide some evidence for your claims and more importantly some evidence that the person has been discussed in reliable sources.Polyamorph (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. I appreciate that this may be a borderline case. Google Scholar seems to produce a lot of hits for him, perhaps more than his CV suggests. A search for "JG Hartnett" gives an H-index of 15, but it misses the top result for "John Hartnett", which has over 100 citations. So I'm happy with passing him under WP:PROF, though I think we do have WP:GNG to fall back on. StAnselm (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

How did you determine the google scholar h-index. Only I ran the author through web of knowledge and his h-index is only 12 (see the analysis below my !vote above), with a substantial quantity of citations being self-citations. So it is not a credible indication of notability. There is no evidence that this author is being discussed in reliable sources. Polyamorph (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

as a rough guide, the h index compiled from GS will be twice that from WoS, because of the additional references from books and conferences and the like. It seems to hold up fairly well in most of the pure sciences. The difference here is larger than usual. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 28 November 2011 (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.