Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Hurtak

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. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Hurtak and The Keys of Enoch

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

James Hurtak (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and The Keys of Enoch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

An author and his book. Almost certainly self-promotion. Described as futurology, the term "pseudo-science" also springs to mind. Are they notable? - RHaworth 13:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, makes lots of claims but little to back them up. For example, claims to have been a founder member of the Mars Society but this search returns nothing, and this search only says he's a speaker, not a founder. No mainstream sources to back up his "Tomb of Osiris" claims. Alice Coltrane isn't a particularly famous artist, and their collaboration album isn't even released yet. Demiurge 13:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless some independent sources are added by the end of this AfD Alf photoman 17:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Regarding James Hurtak: This person has two credible Ph.D.s and for the person who said founder member of the Mars Society what it says is founding member of the Mars society which I checked and it is true. Alice Coltrane is a very popular musican and is already listed in Wikipedia and this supports her reference. I see no reason to delete this person as he is an important person to have listed. He is connected also with the United Nations -- you cannot say that for too many people. Regarding "Keys of Enoch" although I don't see why these two are linked together -- there are now several independent science sources that have been placed at the end of that page and some interesting science sections that should be kept on Wikipedia. It appears to be a valuable source of information from something that has been a popular term in some circles for over thirty years.User: PriscillaW 1:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC) — Informed1212 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — 24.6.140.56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment Can anyone specify what fields his Ph.D.s are in? Both articles are horribly POV, written in a very noncritical way (especially the "science references" in the one about the book). Also, I don't know if "discussing particle physics with physicist Burkhard Heim" should be considered an accomplishment, or something to be ashamed of. HEL 15:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Re Comment Ph.D. History and Oriental Studies (Univ. of Minnesota), Ph.D. Social Sciences and Linguistics (Univ. of California, Irvine). Davidkuff 15:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Regarding the Keys of Enoch: this book is quite uncommon but definitely worth a read and already translated to about eight languages. Regarding James Hurtak: he is not very present in the net but his work has influenced a lot of different people and he did not write just one book, it is more like 20 books and papers not counting the audio books. The Keys of Enoch are just his main book and it is already over 30 years old. James Hurtak is also quite often a guest in TV and radio interviews. I already seen him twice in Austrian local TV. In my opinion the book and the author are defenitly notable. --MetaByte 01:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC) — MetaByte (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep As a “surface user” of Wikipedia I have never before added or contributed to an article (though use it often for encyclopaedic references). But seeing an article on Hurtak I felt it was about time someone did that. I am a psychotherapist working in Germany and first read about the Keys of Enoch in an article on somatic psychotherapy and biosynthesis in the renowned German journal ' 'Energie & Charakter' ' where concepts of that book were taken in psychotherapeutic practice. (I have added the link.) The book contains valid concepts that have contributed to this work in Germany. Years later I heard Hurtak speak in Munich at the so-called "Genesis Symposium” where he spoke with physicists Simon Shnoll and V.P. Kaznacheev on cosmic radiation fields and their impact on mind and behaviour. Yes, I think the man is notable.Given the notability of both the book and the man, the two articles are probably not self-promotion as whoever wrote about Hurtak would almost certainly also post on Keys of Enoch.Soundscape12 07:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC) — Soundscape12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete. Notability not established, and Keep votes seem to be variations on WP:ILIKEIT. -- Fan-1967 14:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP Rencently read the book co-authored by Dr. Targ and Dr. Hurtak... a book well worth reading. I find nothing objectionable to what Dr. Hurtak has to say...I believe his "Book of Enoch" shows his great diversity of knowledge and understandingLerenardargentelerenardargente 01/04/07 — Lerenardargente (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete per Fan-1967. --EMS | Talk 21:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination and all deletion arguments made above. Anville 22:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Help Can you give us more and concrete hints? Someone above said that “references” are needed. We have put them in. Please go back and re-evaluate. I think it’s on a par now with other articles. What else can we do? (David and I, who wrote the articles, have a hard time understanding the “shorthand” you are using.) Any help appreciated.Davidkuff 15:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment References keep getting added to sites and articles that either: (a) do not mention Hurtak or his book at all, or only mention Hurtak or one of his organizations tangentially (b) are press releases or other self-promotion by Hurtak or associates, or (c) are not from sources that fit our definition of Reliable Sources. In fact the only reference I noticed that was a reliable source is a NY Times review of an Alice Coltrane concert that briefly mentioned Hurtak; Not a "non-trivial report" as required in our notability guidelines. --Fan-1967 21:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Re Comment Thank you for concrete hints that help understand. Nevertheless I am surprised that when the original complaint was against an "author and his book" under a) you now WANT us to to cite articles that mention both together. We have taken care not to. And we have deliberately entered the book and the author separately. Re c) The publications of the American Astronomical Society, the Annals of Air and Space Law, the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine ARE reliable and peer-reviewed.Davidkuff 09:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Again Keep both pages have been stronly modified (fact oriented). Regarding notability: Writing several books, scripting films, being a well know scientits and specialist for comperative religions sounds quite notable to me. --MetaByte 20:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Again, no Reliable Sources have been provided to demonstrate that he is, in fact, a well-known scientist. Fan-1967 21:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Re scientist We tried to show that he is well-known as an author writing in many fields and not as a scientist. I know you don't like this argument, but what are the Reliable Sources on pages like Bauval, Hancock or Urantia Book which is sometimes compared with Keys of Enoch?Davidkuff 09:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• No RS sources have been given to show he is a scientist of any sort. or even a scholar of any sort. He may have Ph.D's, but he has published no scholarship in any subject whatsoever except in self-published sources or work published by his organization. Even his scholarly-sounding first book is published by his organization. the only RS listed at all is the symposiums on space law.

• • As for Keys of Enoch, the only RS's cited in the article are sources that talk about other people's work on which he has also written about--but not his work. Check them out. The article fails RS , V, NPOV --let alone notability. all the arguments for notability made above come down to "it sounds notable to me"--that phrase is actually used in the discussion.
    strong delete on both DGG 23:22, 7 January 2007 (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.