Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Itzhak Bentov

:{{la|Itzhak Bentov}}

This article contains ridiculous claims

"His innovative research and theory on Kundalini is still, more than 30 years after its formulation, widely recognized as the best of its kind - and still at the cutting edge of alternative research of methods for Central Nervous System rehabilitation and of mind-body connections."

Come on. Kundalini as a therapy?

"Active Kundalini comprises homogeneous arrangement of electrical duo-poles in the area of the brain connected to the CNS, making that area a conducting material rather than a semi-conductor." WTF?!? What are semiconductors in the context of the brain?

Other material does not make enough sense to allow any serious discussion

"The universe is a hologram. The brain is a hologram interpreting a holographic universe."

Yea, right. Whatever that means.

I doubt that any serious and successful scientific work has been done on kundalini that is

an esoteric concept. Show me any scientific reference by reputable authors with reproducable procedures. Unsubstanciated superlatives like "widely recognized", "widely accepted" and "cutting edge" for stuff that is mere mumbo jumbo is a disgrace to wikipedia. Cognominally (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep and clean-up - per significant coverage: [http://books.google.com/books?id=iOFzumInA2kC&pg=PA63&dq=%22Itzhak+Bentov%22&hl=en&ei=xuV_TMecMI3uOYqyvNcO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=%22Itzhak%20Bentov%22&f=false], [http://books.google.com/books?id=MD7KIpNwSXgC&pg=PA204&dq=%22Itzhak+Bentov%22&hl=en&ei=MuZ_TLTSKsGTONvZ0dUO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCQQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q=%22Itzhak%20Bentov%22&f=false], [http://books.google.com/books?id=cYg6H2aa3-4C&pg=PA104&dq=%22Itzhak+Bentov%22&hl=en&ei=MuZ_TLTSKsGTONvZ0dUO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE0Q6AEwCDgU#v=onepage&q=%22Itzhak%20Bentov%22&f=false] etc. He's a pseudoscientist, but a notable one. I'll tag the article for rescue, and tag for neutrality issues. Claritas § 18:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Of the refs posted, 2 are passing mentions in copies of basically the same article, 1 is from a firm selling his books. The refs above are not much better, only 1 of the three books mention him more than once, the other 2 mention him in passing (once each, with an additional footnote mention). GregJackP Boomer! 20:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep as per Claritas . Bentov's ideas are far out but he has been influential in some areas of thought. Google Scholar throws up 166 mentions of his work. [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Itzhak+Bentov%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0]. Lumos3 (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, he is a pseudoscientist like Claritas said. His ability to attract attention or to make business out of it is irrelevant. Judging by the wikipedia article, his holistic statements are non sensical. Statements to which can be assigned a meaning are clearly invalid scientifically. Thx to Claritas to help me to set up this page. Cognominally (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC) It does not passes WP:BIO criteria that states at the very beginning that there is a need for "secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject." This is hardly the case here. Cognominally (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Looks like it passes WP:BIO, which is biggest consideration here.TheRingess (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems a notable fringer. Keep as per Claritas. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC).
• Comment This needs a few more (and better sources) to establish any notability, none of the coverage appears to be significant a line here a line there.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep If the first two paragraphs in the Life section get inline citations from reliable sources, then he is notable enough to satisfy me. Yes, his claims as a mystic are irrelevant to notability, but almost the same thing could be said of Sir Isaac Newton. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep The article already links to significant coverage in a magazine. He gets coverage elsewhere as well, as others have found. Not liking what he teaches, thinking its nonsense, isn't a valid reason to delete something. Why does this AFD not have the Google news and whatnot search links at the top? Someone filed it wrong. Dream Focus 04:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep and improve, noteworthy fringer. Off2riorob (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2010 (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.