Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium (2nd)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep.--Wizardman 00:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archimedes Plutonium

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Archimedes Plutonium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Fails to pass WP:ATT: No RS/Valid sources to be found in article/from Googling about; WP:N: not the subject of multiple non-trivial sources; WP:RS: see what I wrote about the ATT sourcing--there is none. was nominated once here in mid-2006 and kept but none of the keepers said why in policy it should be kept. The person has apparently also asked for their article to be removed, and they are simply non-notable per our policies/guidelines. Previous Keep/AFD appeared to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT kept which isn't appropriate. Delete as non-notable. - Denny 19:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the Archimedes Plutonium page from Wikipedia because the way Wiki is set up, novice editors who are untrained in logic and reason and objectivity and which allows a flood of demonizers to edit any page in Wikipedia spells only frustration to those serious about science and knowledge. Wikipedia stands at the opposite side of the spectrum-of-encyclopedia compared to when James Clerk Maxwell was the editor of Britannica encyclopedia in the 19th century. The sum total of quality-of-knowledge that the Wikipedia encycl gives is less than or equal to the sum of the intelligence of its combined-editors and that sum is a low-class sum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) - 19:51, March 19, 2007
    • Comment Man, Archie, that's really a tough hurdle you're setting up there.. that Britannica, really had a lot of luminaries writing for it. I guess they just don't make things like they used to. Not even the current Britannica. Hey and Wikipedia? We can't even use it as toilet paper!--CSTAR 21:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, for that is just the way Wiki is set up. That it cannot do a good job of objectivity or of science entries. The mind set of most Wiki editors is one of a friday night drunk fraternity party. Most of the kooks of the alt newsgroup have turned into being crappy Wiki editors. These sort of editors would be terrific if all Wikipedia did only Hollywood airheads, but when it comes to doing factual or scientific, Wiki looks like some grocery store tabloid. If Wiki were around when Copernicus or Galileo or Darwin came out with their science, you would have the same buffoon squad of editors that would only frustrated Copernicus, Galileo or Darwin. Wiki is contructed by mocking juvenile delinquents as editors. Take a look at Wiki's page of Archimedes Plutonium, for a reasonable person would see that he is given a page because of the Atom Totality theory, so explain this theory in the first three or four sentences, but for the past decade of the Wiki entry everything about eating candy and fruit and what clothing the bloke wears and trying to tie Plutonium to a murder case, everything but his original idea. So who needs a Wiki entry when the entire Wikipedia is mostly a piece of junk.

        When the Dalai Lama wrote a book in 2006 as "Universe in a Single Atom" where was the Wikipedia goon squad of editors mocking the Dalai Lama, yet when Archimedes Plutonium discovered the idea some 16 years earlier, the Wikipedia goon squad is falling all over themselves to mock and harrass AP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) 2007-03-20 04:35:31

      • Comment because Wikipedia is not good enough for any science entries, for it is loaded with immature brats and editors who lack the logic and reasoning and objectivity. Brats who have not even grown up enough to not play trick and pranks. Any scientist who has a Wiki page is worse off than if he/she did not because of the tons of misinformation and the immature mentality of its editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) 2007-03-20 04:35:31
  • Keep. AP gets 21000 google hits. I don't know if that counts as notability but it sure indicates existence and interest. The fact that the subject has requested removal of the page was irrelevant in other AfDs. In my opinion one of CSTAR's later edits is a good fair description of the subject. Usenet is hard to document in dead trees for obvious reasons. Greglocock 20:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are RS sources about other internet 'legends', but the problem is this person simply fails our standards for notability. Can you address my points above? thank you. - Denny 20:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, Google shows <400 hits, if you follow the search to the end, not 24000. - Denny 20:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, interesting on the google hits, how do you find the real number? OK the problem is that his posts on usenet are primary sources, as such "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. Primary sources are documents or people close to the situation you are writing about" So, it seems to me that edits based on searches in google groups would be an acceptable source for a usenet phenomenon. Greglocock 20:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • For the real Google count, just go to the last page of results--then again, and again, until you can't descend further. That will show you what Google actually has on a search string... for the sources, however, Usenet is typically not valid per WP:ATT & WP:RS, correct? - Denny 20:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • For comparison, my (real) name gets about 400 hits on Google. That puts me in the same Google fame league as AP, and I don't consider myself famous or unusual enough to warrant my own Wikipedia article. — Loadmaster 20:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK. Well on that basis I get 814 results for "Jimmy Wales", so AP is half as googly as JW, and 6 times more googly than myself, or Loadmaster (incidentally is your name unique?). I don't know if googliness=notability, but it sure is /a/ measure of something related. I really don't see how you can discount Usenet as a source for Usenet related articles. Greglocock 20:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • the quality of the source counts as well, and forum and/or posts never count for anything as they are completely unreliable... the sheer number of Google hits is also a supporting criteria, not a main. I.e., the phrase/some guy named "Hipocrates Uranium" might appear 50,000 times in Google, but that doesn't make them article-worthy by itself. Please double check WP:N and WP:ATT. that decides what stays and goes. - Denny 21:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment because the above who said Keep is an editor and what Denny displays is typical of Wiki editors because when I google Archimedes Plutonium I get 41,000 hits. So if Wiki editors typically cannot even tell the factual truth, then no scientist would want to have a Wiki page. When Denny cannot even say the truth of 41,000, then he is hopeless when it comes to reading Atom Totality or Fusion Barrier Principle or Unification of Forces as a Coulomb Unification. I mean, Denny would be good in writing an entry for some HollyWood airhead who wants constant attention but to people serious about science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) 2007-03-20 04:35:31
Neutral: I'm changing my vote on the grounds that he may be noteworthy enough to warrant an article in Wikipedia, but then again he may not. What I said in the preceding paragraph still stands, i.e., that he is really only noteworthy because of his limited Usenet fame. He certainly does not deserve an article merely to promote his crank theory.
— As to his comments about Google hits, Google shows that there are 23,500 hits. But as has been pointed out several times here already, there are only 454 actual URLs, and almost all of them have nothing noteworthy to say. That's about the same number as there are for my real name, most of which reference a handful of articles I've have on my personal web page, and that's not enough to warrant a Wikipedia article about me.
— AP's insistence on an "articles of permanent barring" policy, is, of course, ludicrous. One personal cannot, and does not, dictate what is or is not worthy of inclusion in a public encyclopedia. And he can't possibly expect written history to vanish simply because he'd like to forget some of the more unpleasant things in the past.
— His claims of historical ideas to support his theory (which in fact, they do not) has no bearing on the article, for the simple reason that the article is about him the person and cannot be about his theory. His crank theory is mentioned only in order to establish the basis of the controversies surrounding it. As much as he'd like the world to hear his beliefs, WP is certainly not the place for them to do so.
— His personal attacks on "would-be editors" don't help his case either way. In fact, they only serve to prove the allegations of his Internet notoriety. Obviously, his comments should hold no sway at all concerning the status of the article.
— In the end, the article is essentially only about what a controversial person he is. I am undecided about whether that's enough for a WP article or not.
— Loadmaster 15:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources exist to establish notability. The glancing reference in the Discover article isn't enough. For this to be kept, he'd have to be a notable crank, which means that we need reliable sources established that he is more notable than, say, James Harris, who has no WP page. There are many cranks out there; we can't include them based on personal experience. If, for example, a reputable paper or journal ran an analysis of Usenet postings and determined that this person is remarkable based on their volume of posts, that would be a source. Or multiple non-trivial references in reliable sources mentioning him as a notable crank. I don't deny he may be notable, but there's not enough evidence of his notability in the article. Mike Christie (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral. Changed from delete to neutral because of the work done on finding sources. I still have concerns -- I think the phrase "a notable internet phenomenon" is a subjective assessment, and I also think many of the references are glancing only. The Francis reference appears to contain almost all the non-trivial information, and that doesn't really establish his notability as a crank, only his incidental involvement in the murder case. This is not enough by itself for inclusion in Wikipedia, otherwise the other incidental participants such as Roxana Verona (who is given more coverage than AP by Francis) would be in WP too. However, the sum of the other incidental references makes it borderline, and Francis's information at least lends credence to the notion that AP is a notable crank. So I'm switching to neutral. I still believe that if AP is as widely known as is claimed, other sources specifically (rather than incidentally) about him can and should be found. Mike Christie (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the most notable Usenet personalities from its formative years and a character of much interest now. Phiwum 21:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Denny keeps asking, "most notable personality" according to whom? Are there any citations we can use? — Loadmaster 21:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting to who? What sources are talking about him now? - Denny 21:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • A notable personality based on existing documents written by influential members of Usenet at the time. Killfile.org and alt.usenet.kooks both have entries dealing with Archimedes Plutonium and the latter is at least notable enough for their own entry here on WP. Is it a reliable source? Seems to me its role as a source is comparable to that of historical sources reporting on beliefs and opinions of the day—admittedly, on a more trivial subject. Is there any Usenet character that deserves a Wikipedia page, in your opinions? If so, how do you identify notability? If not, is Archie's page just the first in a list that includes all of Category:Usenet_people?Phiwum 21:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment because many of the above are by people who dwell in the alt kook newsgroups. These are, in my opinion, people with mental disorders that they spend a large chunk of their life in categorizing other people as demeaning. They are stalking bullies who for some psychotic reason they boost their ego by calling other people bad names. The above indicates that many of the Wiki editors dwell over in the kook newsgroups. So Wikipedia is no place for anyone who is serious about science because it is infested with lowclass editorial minds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) 2007-03-20 04:35:31
    • Article has been tagged for sources for quite a long while already... do we know they exist? - Denny 22:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I went through the article pretty closely over the weekend and cleaned up the display of the references so they were not just external links in square brackets. I was able to find everything that is "cited" ...
  • Questions: Keesiewonder talk 22:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ) Do we know for sure that User:Superdeterminism is AP? (Seems like we can't know this ...)
      • Answer Sorry to break up your sentences. Superdeterminism is in fact me-- Archimedes Plutonium. I signed in to Wiki as Superdeterminism since I created a entry on Superdeterminism, but the day after I offered the entry it was rejected as "new research". But if the truth be known, is that the editor had little to no understanding of science, and because of his laziness, rejected it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) 2007-03-21 06:03:12
    2. ) What exactly in WP:BLP says how to handle a request from a person to delete an article about them? I see this, but, that's not this AfD ... i.e. if George W. Bush wanted the WP article on him deleted, would we give his comments in an AfD more weight than that of other users?
  • Comment: this might help: [1]. There are print references to this person: anyone with the inclination to swing by a good bookstore or a library could look them up. The Oliver Sacks book mentions that he was a dishwasher at Dartmouth. Don't know how good the sources are on his real name: it's a fair question. Antandrus (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only the first 3 hits apply to our man, though. i.e. AP but not A................P or P.....................A Keesiewonder talk 22:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correct. And it's those three which are printed, reliable sources. Antandrus (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The second and third of those are trivial passing references which I don't think meet WP:N's criteria. The first is certainly non-trivial, but I don't know that they justify an entry for AP. There are many more references in that book to Roxana Verona, for example, and she doesn't have a WP entry. However, I'd agree that if there are multiple sources like this that mention AP's eccentricities, that would be an argument to keep this article. As it is it appears he simply is mentioned in passing, as many non-notable people are in this book. Mike Christie (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - few Usenet kooks are notable; Archimedes Plutonium is one of the few. It doesn't matter if he wants the article removed; all that matters is that the article is neutrally written, reliably sourced, and meets WP:BLP. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ' Comment you see what I mean. Label the person as a "kook" and keep the entry so that we can mock him and get drunk and laugh over him and then constantly throw darts at his Wiki page. You see what I mean about the level of maturity and aptitude of Wiki editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) 2007-03-20 04:35:31
    • Is there a different standard for reliable sources when the material exists almost exclusively on Usenet? Keesiewonder talk 22:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Either we accept Usenet archives and similar sources for information about Usenet or we have no reliably sourced articles about almost any Usenet phenomenon at all. There are no books about what happened on Usenet, but there is an archive. We must be careful, since posts can be forged, but I'd say that we have very reliable authority on the main gist of this article: AP exists and supports various strange theories on Usenet. Phiwum 00:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not the existence of a crank poster that's at issue; it's his notability. Surely a truly notable person would generate coverage elsewhere? Many books do exist (such as the "Hacker's Dictionary") which document net phenomena. Mike Christie (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I'm admittedly torn on this one. I am usually a stickler for a plethora of reliable, third party references published in scholarly sources, if at all possible. That's not possible here. On the other side, I recognize that this is a realm where Wikipedia can distinguish itself from other encyclopedias, and include an article on "someone" like AP. While getting up to speed on this topic, I clicked on the category Usenet people, and immediately recognized another entry - Greg Deeter. I'm not a Usenet user, but I am a stamp collector, and Greg Deeter is a familiar name. I skimmed the article WP has on him, and, I have to say, I'm glad there is an article here on him since I didn't realize what he was a part of - and I recognize I may not have ever seen this aspect of him anywhere else. AP receives more "hits" I believe than Deeter ... thus ... by that reasoning alone ... I need to say I'd keep the article on AP. Keesiewonder talk 00:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please be certain that you're not voting "keep" just to thumb your nose at old Pluto Ron Ritzman 00:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE (weak Keep see comment labeled Reasoning below) per WP:A: "Any unsourced material may be removed, and in biographies of living persons, unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately." I know, I'm shouting. If all this Googling had brought up a useable reference, one of you editors above would have stuck it on the article. No reliable sources, no article. (And there sure ain't anything reliable and nontrivial in the references section.) What more is there to discuss? Noroton 05:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, here's another little reference for you: WP:BLP, the second full paragraph reads:
      We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.
    • There are footnotes there attributing a lot of this stuff to some "Jimbo" fella. I think I'll now go and do it myself. Look at archived versions if you want to see what the article used to look like. Noroton 05:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC) (fix link to WP:BLP Noroton 05:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • On second thought, I did leave two lines as well as the quotes. We rely directly or indirectly on people to tell the world what their birthday is (that's where the sources we cite on birthdays get the information from, almost 100 percent of the time), and a quote from Usenet and info from Usenet is properly sourced to Usenet, so the quotes are there. Not much of an article.Noroton 05:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reasoning for changing to "weak keep": I'm impressed by the work done by editors to recreate this article. I think the article shows multiple reliable sources (but just barely, therefore "weak"). I think any administrator who closes this argument and decides to keep would first need to decide that the sourcing of contentious material is, in fact reliable enough for Wikipedia to hang its hat on. My biggest concern is the reliance on The Dartmouth, a student newspaper, as a source. Again, I admire the work done here. It's produced a really interesting article. Noroton 16:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good to me, short and sweet.Greglocock 06:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hello, I am Archimedes Plutonium, and I want this Wikipedia page of me removed. I am in the throes of having some of my work published in hardcover and the Wikipedia entry of me for the past decade has been mostly a detriment to that end, for it was full of mockery and character defamation. It never focused on any of my original ideas. When anyone comes up with a new and original idea, it seems like a flood of demonizers follow him. There is no-one on the Wikipedia staff who could do justice on a biography of Archimedes Plutonium. So I anticipate that publishing outside the Internet medium will turn the corner on this person who loves doing science and loves to discover new ideas. Wikipedia is only a stumbling block and another dartboard. There is not a single editor at Wiki who is objective.

    Comments on why Wikipedia has been a decade's long demonization of Archimedes Plutonium

    Here is what an objective page on Archimedes Plutonium would look like:

    quoting what would be an objective page on AP

    Archimedes Plutonium born 5 July 1950 with the name Ludwig Poehlmann in Arzberg Germany. (http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/)He earned a B.A. degree in mathematics from University of Cincinnati and a Masters from Utah State University. He was adopted in his teens and had his name changed several times, Ludwig Hansen, then Ludwig van Ludvig, then Ludwig Plutonium and finally Archimedes Plutonium. He is noted for many original ideas in science but his most noteworthy one is the Atom Totality theory. A brief history of this theory during human history follows:

    The first idea of a Universe being one single atom appears to have been Democritus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus) some 2,400 years ago, one of the founders of the Atomic theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory), as referenced by the book "A Short History of Atomism", Joshua C. Gregory, 1931, A.&C. Black Ltd, page 4 "single Democritean atom might even be, so some said, as big as the world. The gigantic Democritean atom, if it ever existed, vanished from the atomic tradition."

    Georges Lemaître hinted of the Atom-Totality or Single-Atom-Universe in his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom' first presented in 1927. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre Ironic that Lemaître is credited with the discovery of the Big-Bang theory, and yet he begins the Big-Bang with saying that the total universe starts out as a atom-totality. Ironic that by 1990, the greatest rival to the Big-Bang theory will become the Atom-Totality theory.

    Carl Sagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan) hinted of the Atom-Totality or Single-Atom-Universe in the idea that the universe can be an elementary particle; as written in his book "Cosmos", 1980, Random House: pages 265-267 "so that an elementary particle, such as an electron, in our universe would, if penetrated, reveal itself to be an entire closed universe."

    The Atom-Totality or Single-Atom-Universe does not come into full bloom until November 1990, Archimedes Plutonium announced a full theory of the Atom Totality theory, by stating what chemical element the Universe is specifically-- a big Plutonium Atom and that galaxies are dots of the electron-dot-cloud of this single big plutonium atom. AP states it must be plutonium to satisfy special numbers of physics and mathematics such as the fine-structure-constant, the 2.71 Kelvin cosmic microwave background radiation, quantized galaxy speeds, Sloan Great Wall of galaxies, and the values of (pi) and (e).

    References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_Structure_Constant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloan_Great_Wall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Tifft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eulers_number

    Interestingly, Archimedes Plutonium has the first Internet Book where he wrote the entire book and used the Internet to publish it. This first Internet published book is his Atom Totality Universe: Book: "ATOM TOTALITY THEORY REPLACES THE BIG-BANG THEORY OF PHYSICS", Archimedes Plutonium Internet book published 1993-2007 (assimilated in Jan-Feb 2007 in sci.physics,sci.math)

    Curiously, the Dalai Lama published a book "Universe in a Single Atom" in 2006 by Time Warner. The Dalai Lama never referenced Archimedes Plutonium but then when does a spiritual leader ever reference and cite the way scientists cite? Reference, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalai_Lama

    end quoting of what would be an objective Wiki page of Archimedes Plutonium

    The gang of Wiki editors never demonized Democritus for his say on the Atom Totality.

    The gang of Wiki editors never demonized Georges Lemaître on his Wiki page over his Atom Totality.

    The gang of Wiki editors never demonized and ad-hominemed Carl Sagan over his say on Atom Totality.

    The gang of Wiki editors including Mr. Rubin and Mr. Dudley never demonized nor ad hominemed the Dalai Lama over his Atom Totality.

    But when Archimedes Plutonium has a Wiki page, well, the worst in every editor comes out and rushes forth to put any demonizing and tainted and ad hominem and even libel on Archimedes Plutonium. As if the editors, judging from the below want to say just one word about Mr. AP--- call him kook. They do not want to call Democritus, nor Lemaaitre, nor Sagan, nor the Dalai Lama, but when AP appears, then every ugly opinion becomes part of a Wikipedia biography.

    The above is a objective entry of Archimedes Plutonium, and why that is almost impossible and difficult for Wiki editors to do is really beyond belief. For the past decade Wiki has done nothing but a joke and mockery and demonization of Archimedes Plutonium.

    Currently the References cited on AP's page are inappropriate for they reflect more on the game of demonizing Mr. Plutonium than to objectively understand what he has done. References of Ad Hominem on Mr. Plutonium

    3. ^ Ludwig Plutonium in sci.math (Google Group), Ludwig Plutonium, King of the Universe (discussion thread), December 12, 1993

    4. ^ Archimedes Plutonium in sci.chem (Google Group), Forge your friends to a subscription list, Xmass greeting card (discussion thread), September 2, 1996

    5. ^ Ludwig Plutonium in alt.sci.physics.plutonium (Google Group), Plutonium Atom Totality: The Unification of Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Mathematics (pages 3-11 of 400) (discussion thread), January 6, 1994

    * Kahn, Jennifer (2002-04-01). "Notes from Another Universe". Discover. Retrieved on 2007-03-18.

    * Scott, Joseph C. "Sometime-scientist Plutonium says science is 'gobbledygook'", The Dartmouth, 1997-09-25.

    None of the above references focus on his noteworthiness of his ATom Totality. Neither Kahn nor Scott ever attack Democritus for his Atomic Theory and Atom Totality, neither Kahn nor Scott ever attack Carl Sagan for his Atom Totality of elementary particle, and neither does Kahn nor Scott attack Lemaitre for his Atom Totality. But then again the reason neither Kahn or Scott attacks Democritus, or Sagan or Lemaitre is because neither Kahn or Scott know enough about science and about the Atomic theory. These are examples of two reporters who are ill suited to report on Archimedes Plutonium and they end up with a piece of demonizing and perhaps even libelous journalism.

    Also, the current Wiki page on Mr. Plutonium gives two quotes, which have been there for a decade and which are so ill suited for his page because of their irrelevance to his noteworthiness of the Atom Totality. Which again shows that the editors of Wiki are so foreign to doing a decent job of a entry. The Wiki page on Archimedes PLutonium has been a magnet and dartboard for jokesters who like to demonize a person.

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) 2007-03-20 19:13:26

    • Comment NPOV means that an article may present negative facts alongside positive ones. If your "biography" sticks, then you're going to have to admit it will be neutral, which means it must not promote you or your work. It must be neutral. WP is an encyclopedia, not a vanity press. mike4ty4 09:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, marginally notable. The Google book references stand out here. Everyking 00:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No they don't. There's exactly 1 result: ISBN 9057022222. The total content related to this person in that book is the following 14 words (on page 141): "Medium volume group which gives a home to Archimedes Plutonium and his many theories". In other words: There's nothing in the book about this person at all. The book is documenting a newsgroup, not a person. Uncle G 01:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are three results, as someone stated above. Everyking 02:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That someone was wrong. If you want to assert otherwise, list the specific ISBNs rather than linking to a set of search results where you haven't even searched for the two words in the correct order — and thus have picked up things like ISBN 185070418X where the words "Archimedes" and "plutonium" occur in two entirely separate entries. Counting Google hits is not research. Actually reading what Google turns up is research. Actually reading what it turns up in this case, as I said, reveals 1 book, whose 14 word entry for a newsgroup in fact contains nothing about this person at all. Uncle G 10:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • This book does have non-trivial coverage of AP; however, I don't believe it is sufficient for this article. See prior comment: [2]). Mike Christie (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Looks like you can't link like I intended to. The section I referred to is in the first book listed under this search: "The Dartmouth Murders". That one has non-trivial coverage, though as I said earlier I don't believe it suffices. Mike Christie (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • The first book that comes up when I follow that link is ISBN 9057022222, The Internet for Scientists. No book in that list (of 16 books) has the title The Dartmouth Murders. Don't link to search result pages. Cite the actual sources. You're discovering one of the reasons that proper citations don't take the forms of bare URLs. Uncle G 16:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Uncle G, In addition to the one you've noticed, equivalent to ISBN 978-9057022227, please see ISBN 978-0312982317 & ISBN 978-0060936518. I'm not implying these are or are not scholarly research supporting an article on AP - just providing ISBNs to the three we've been referred to all along in this AfD. Keesiewonder talk 11:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The one editor who actually provides some real citation information instead of search engine links! Thank you. You'll be interested to know that Google Books claims, when I enter those latter two ISBNs, that no such books exist. Fortunately, Amazon knows differently. (This is why we have Special:Booksources.) I agree that The Dartmouth Murders has significantly more than 14 words. ☺ The Best American Science Writing 2003 is just a re-print of the article by Kahn that is already cited in the article. Uncle G 16:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Bizarre, man. It's right there in the link I gave you. The first three. There are excerpts of the text that mentions him, and you can click on the links to the books to read more. This is not hard. Everyking 11:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It wouldn't have been hard for you to provide the ISBNs, as I said to do, but you still didn't. The first three books listed when I follow the link that you gave are The Internet for Scientists, as mentioned above, Archimedes, Newton, Murphy: wetten uit de wetenschap (ISBN 9085060184), and Physics Today (published 1948 by the American Institute of Physics). Now if you had given the ISBNs as you were asked to, I actually could have followed hyperlinks to the actual books that you were referring to. Linking to a Google search page is not citing a source. Uncle G 16:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete If he's so "widely noted" for this weird plutonium thing of his, why are there so many citation needed tags, warning templates, and only apparently 14 words in a book about usenet that concern him? If the person above who claims to be the subject of this article actually is the subject, maybe it's a better idea to wait until he actually publishes his thing, though even then, i'd think that'd just be one primary source.... Homestarmy 01:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment I think we are missing the point. The person, or should I say persona, is probably best described as inside joke. Perhaps it corresponds to a biological person, but perhaps not. I quote from [3] " He's had letters to the editors of Scientific American magazine printed under that moniker. I believe the letters turned up in the April [Fool] issues of the late 80s, early 90s." If the article is kept as a reasonable notable phenomenon, there are some similar references I am eager to add. There is real pseudo science, and there is pseudo-pseudo science. DGG 04:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting perspective, DGG; thanks. I did notice that the Discover article's publication date is April 1 ... Keesiewonder talk 09:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to the April fool This outlines my frustration with Wikipedia editors. How can anyone who reads what I wrote above about Democritus with the idea of Atom Totality, then Lemaitre with the idea of Atom Totality, then Carl Sagan with the idea of Atom Totality and then AP with the full Atom-Totality and then 16 years later the Dalai Lama with the Atom Totality. They don't get it. To them the Atomic Theory is non-notable, yet Feynman said the Atomic theory is the single most important idea in all the world. So these Wiki editors, their logic says that Democritus, Atomic theory, Feynman, Sagan, Lemaitre are all nonnotables. You see what I mean that Wikipedia page on a scientist probably ends up as a frustation to that scientist because it ends up as a negative light on that scientist since the people whose words come to describe that scientist, have no scientific brains to be writing about that scientist. Only other scientists can accurately describe a scientist in an encyclopedia, not these "less than half logical minds". Wikipedia should stick to being an encyclopedia "only for" Hollywood females who need that 24/7 constant attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) 2007-03-21 05:45:27
      • You really could stop, SD, with inserting personal attacks against all Wikipedia editors in an AfD. Who is it that does not have any scholarly, non-self-published works to their name ... or even an entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica? This is not an AfD on all of Wikipedia, or an editor review for everyone except you. Keesiewonder talk 09:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yet you seem to be causing almost as much heat as AP. You waded in without reading the article properly, made some ridiculous number of edits as you floundered about, and now try and control the resulting debacle. Greglocock 09:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Question to Greglocock I would like to make a change to this Articles of Deletion. I would like for this to be a PERMANENT and FOREVER PERMANENT Deletion. In other words, after I become more famous, that Wikipedia is never allowed to put my name on anything of theirs. That Wiki can never have a page on Archimedes Plutonium. I have wasted so much time and frustration over this Wiki page that I would have the satisfaction that Wiki never can do a page on Archimedes Plutonium. Wikipedia is a blight to a serious scientist. So, Greglocock, can you change the above to be a Forever Permanent barring of Archimedes Plutonium from Wikipedia. And that would also include my entry of "Biophysics in the Bipedalism page of yours" to toss that out completely. In life, when I meet illogical people, I can only spend so much time, until I never want to waste another minute on them.

            Greglocock, please delete all of this, because, I, Archimedes Plutonium wrote it all [edit] Biophysics of bipedalism

            Notice in this picture frame above "A Man Running - Edward Muybridge" that there are two frames in which one leg is fully extended to a 180 degree position of upper leg and lower leg, simultaneous with the other leg almost contiguous of the upper leg with lower leg. This is the same physics features in overarm throwing snapping of the elbow (not overarm stiff elbow sling style) where the upper arm is virtually contiguous to the lower arm just before the thrust forward and snapping of the elbow joint. So just as in running, throwing achieves maximum thrust forward when the knee and elbow are midpoints in the configuration. Running is what physics would call the throwing of the body forward by two legs. Reference-- Book: "STONETHROWING THEORY, THE DOMINANT THEORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY", Archimedes Plutonium Internet book published 2002-2007 (assimilated in March 2007 in sci.anthropology.paleo, sci.med, sci.physics) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) 2007-03-21 10:31:16

        • Reply to Keesiwonder Well how would you like it Mr. Keesiwonder, if Wiki did a page on you, and for ten years, a decade, that page had you tied to a Zantop murder. And for 10 years you kept trying to delete that reference from you page, where the editors constantly revert it and finally in the 10th year the editors locked the page because you kept removing the Zantop murder. So do you go around praising the Wiki editors as they mock you and make a joke of you for ten years. I would say my behaviour was pretty much constrained and well behaved in light of what I had to put up with for 10 years.

          These are the facts. Wikipedia does an awful job on science entries. It does not have the editors capable of doing biographies of scientists. And the end result of any science entry in Wikipedia, because it is always open to editorial changes by nonscientists, that every science entry in Wikipedia is a frustration to scientists. Wikipedia on science is like a grocery store tabloid on science.

          Britannica Encyclopedia compared to Wikipedia on science subjects A Wikipedia entry on science whether a person or a concept or theory is choppy because few entries are written by one person, who can make it all flow together. This is the frustrating problem I have had with my page on Archimedes Plutonium. That I need to show the flow of logic from Democritus to Lemaitre to Sagan to AP. Yet when hundreds of editors put their little tid bit to compose a page, you end up with nothing but choppy unconnected pieces of tidbits. So when you read Britannica on some science issue, it is integrated and a flow of logic. When you read Wiki on science it is logically bereft and wildly incongruent in thought or sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) 2007-03-21 09:53:37

          • This is Wikipedia, not Wiki, and it did not exist 10 years ago; so you cannot have been trying to do anything with it for 10 years. Indeed, given that the murder of Half and Susanne Zantop itself occured only 6 years ago, there's no way that you could have been tied to it for 10 years. From a few minutes looking at the history of this article (which has only existed for 3 years) I cannot find any version of it where it has even mentioned Zantop at all. It was apparently an article by Associated Press, datelined 2002-06-30 and republished by outlets such as the Boston Globe, that mentioned Archimedes Plutonium in conjunction with (specifically, lest people leap to the wrong conclusion: being entirely ruled out of) the Zantop case. Your complaint is with the Associated Press and the Boston Globe, not Wikipedia. Uncle G 10:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reply to Mr. UncleG Well thanks, my memory is not as good as when I was young, but I do recall that Wikipedia had a page on me circa the late 1990s with its usual mockery of -- clothes I wear, obnoxious nicknames, sleeping in a cemetery, dishwasher/potwasher, and the Tim Skirvin reference to "crank" and Zantop murder. I was too busy in moving and getting established out west after leaving the east coast to bother about a Wikipedia page on me. But I am in the throes of hardcover publishing and have tried to recast that page to be objective in the past several years. And the harder I tried, the worse the page became. So, apparently, I am going to have to force a Elimination of that page as the only real viable way out of this. Question Mr. UncleG: is there a Articles of Barring of a Person from Wikipedia. For I have wasted too much time on this, when I should be doing real science. A total Barring of Wikipedia from ever using the name Archimedes Plutonium in any future Wikipedia entry.

              Wikipedia ARTICLES OF PERMANENT BARRING The way I envision this is the strongest form of deletion of Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia is so poor in science entries and scientist biographies. That Wikipedia have a Articles of Permanent Barring, where any person who has a Wikipedia entry can sign the list of Barrement and Wikipedia must immediately remove that entry and is not allowed to name that person in any of their entries. So that I could end my Wiki entry today and not even have to vote on it. And further by placing my name in their Barrement section of Wikipedia, Wiki can never use my name in any of their entries. And this Barrement section allows any scientist in the world today to place their name to that section and for which Wikipedia can never mention that person. What this does is fix all those mocking jokers pretending to be editors of a encyclopedia.

  • reply to Greglocock who wrote me on a different page but I am unfamilar as to how to talk to him there. So I post it here. I understand and accept what Greg is telling me. But this issue is larger than my case. This issue is larger because in the old days of science writing and science biographies was done by other scientists in a refereed hardcover book format or in newspaper print. It was not done to a world public medium where any nonscientist can alter and mock and jeer and harrass a entry of a biography of a scientist. So there is a huge wide difference between science encyclopedias and science books and science biographies of the past history, compared to Wikipedia which is wide open to everyone to alter facts. Facts and truth to scientists is very much foremost, but because Wikipedia is open to change by everyone in the world, that Wikipedia needs a ARTICLES OF PERMANENT BARRING as an invasion of the privacy of some scientist who do not want to be invaded of their privacy. So this becomes to the USA Supreme Court an issue of privacy since Wikipedia is wide open to changes by anyone in the world. Some scientists are not going to like being entered in Wikipedia where they can be mocked and libeled such as I have been for nearly a decade. So what I am saying is that Wikipedia should have ARTICLES OF BARREMENT for which some scientist can easily place their name to that list which forever forbids Wikipedia to have an entry of that person or to ever use his/her name in Wikipedia. Now if Wikipedia changes its policy of "open to all to edit" then this Barrement Article can be relaxed. signed Archimedes Plutonium

comment to the earlier Google book reference by Eric Francis This is why I say to be objective about a Archimedes Plutonium entry would be a short and simple entry that deals with his birth, his education and then the rest about his Atom Totality theory which makes him notable. During the 1990s when Mr. Plutonium was posting his theory to the Internet there arose such a gang of hatemongers including Eric Francis who then wrongfully included Mr. Plutonium into his murder book. So then, if Wikipedia references Francis, well, that is a tainted a and libelous reference. I am not saying that it is easy to write a objective entry for Mr. Plutonium, given that the world is filled with hatemongers who have referenced Mr. Plutonium. So that is why I keep saying that a Wikipedia page on Mr. Plutonium has to be bare facts and Atom Totality and nothing else.

the libelous Eric Francis reference Newsgroups: sci.physics, soc.history, misc.legal From: "a_plutonium" <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> Date: 21 Mar 2007 10:53:01 -0700 Local: Wed, Mar 21 2007 11:53 am Subject: Does libel have statue of limitations? Re: the Eric Francis "Dartmouth Murders" libeling the innocent Archimedes Plutonium

--- quoting Google books --- The Dartmouth Murders By Eric Francis Summary Preview this book Preview this book By Eric Francis Published 2002 St. Martin's Press True Crime / Espionage 244 pages ISBN 0312982313

ERIC FRANCIS is a freelance reporter and photojournalist whose work has appeared in dozens of newspapers and magazines in over 30 countries. A staff correspondent for People Magazine, Francis has also covered several notable murder cases for The New York Times, the Boston Globe, and Time Magazine. He lives on the Vermont-New Hampshire border and was one of the first reporters on the scene of the Zantop double homicide in January, 2001.

--- end quoting Google books ---

I do not know if Eric Francis is the same as (oF60Hc4w1...@alcyone.darkside.com) 

m...@alcyone.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis) who had stalked

Archimedes Plutonium for years with his spew of hatred and demonization.

Anyway, when people hate other people in the way that Eric Francis hates Archimedes Plutonium, then their little minds do a trick on them. That they look for moments of opportunity to tie and connect innocent people like AP with a tradegy. Where they mix innocent people up with a murder. So that innocent people like AP is forever tangled up with something he had absolutely nothing to do with.

Anyone who reads this message, how would they feel if a reporter hated you, and then as soon as that reporter gets involved with some murder, includes your name in a page of that murder in a book? I think most people would be very much angered by the action of Eric Francis.

Because when the Zantop murder occurred, Archimedes Plutonium had departed Dartmouth about 2years prior and was living calmly and peaceably in the Midwest some thousands of miles away from Dartmouth. Yet AP was called by the Hanover New Hampshire police.

I believe this is libel if ever I have seen libel. In that how in the world can a news reporter demonize me in a book about a tragic murder for which I was half the continent away and which I had nothing to do with.

Does anyone know the statue of limitations for libel? And if a lawyer is reading this and who knows something about me as per my love of doing science on the Internet and would like to help me to "get some justice put onto Eric Francis, please indicate in a followup post.

I am very busy with science and hate to have to leave it to correct what I call "people problems", but I feel that Eric Francis needs to be punished for how he has victimized an innocent person-- Archimedes Plutonium. Because if I do not seek justice on Francis, then like Kant's Categorical Imperative-- Francis will then victimize some other innocent after having gotten away with victimizing me.

Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

end Internet post about the libelous Eric Francis

  • Keep Archimedes' legal threats and rants aside, we have mulitple non-trivial reliable sources, the Eric Francis and the Joseph Scott references easily meet this criterion and the Discovery magazine reference is just more icing on the cake. He meets WP:BIO. JoshuaZ 15:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for Arthur Rubin and Uncle G already the page is one day old and already tussling over it. I want to know why it is that so much "crazy energy" is spent on Wikipedia biographies wherein the first sentence the main focus is on a nickname. Is it because Jimmy Wales page starts out with the first sentence calling him Jimbo? If Wikipedia did a page on George Washington, would the first sentence be: George Washington, born ... was nicknamed G.W. Is this nickname obsession some reflection of the age of Wikipedia editors that they seem comforted in knowing what a persons nickname is as the most important data on that person. And why has Uncle G and Arthur Rubin reverted my change of "Arky" to "A.P." On the Internet and most everywhere, people refer to me as AP or A.P. as short for Archimedes Plutonium. Just because a murder book says that some few unknown people are alleged to have called me "Arky" and are alleged to be fans, is highly inappropriate to put into a Wikipedia biography. Francis may have stood on a street corner and asked a passerby if he/she knows Archimedes Plutonium and they may have said "oh, Arky". And Francis then publishes Arky, but is that any reason to start the encyclopedia of Wikipedia on Archimedes Plutonium over something as dumb and stupid as "Arky". How would Arthur Rubin like it if Wikipedia did his biography and the first sentence is "Arthur Rubin, born ..., is nicknamed Arty by his grandparents." Maybe instead of asking this question, maybe instead I should ask for a 3rd attempt at Articles of Deletion because already my frustation thermometer is beginning to rise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superdeterminism (talk • contribs) 06:51, March 23, 2007
    • AfD # 2 is not over. WP:BLP and WP:OWN apply to this article just like any other. However, it is a bit unclear what the guidelines are when a living person takes to editing/owning the article about that same person. Keesiewonder talk 10:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's Wikipedia house style to list alternative names in the first section, and it is Wikipedia policy to go with what the sources say and not to add our own new conclusions and new theories. No editor is exempt from our content policies. You have to cite sources that back up your claim that "people refer to me as AP or A.P.", just as I've had to cite sources that back up what I've written about (for example) people defending you on freedom of speech grounds. Currently, we have exactly one source that documents one nickname. So that's what the article says. If someone finds other sources that document other alternative names, we can add those names to the article. Uncle G 11:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure that listing "your" nickname is encyclopedic, but, if we are to list it, we must list only those from reliable sources. You are not a reliable source as to what you're called, only as to what you say. (I was nicknamed "Arty" by some (fortunately) deceased relatives, but I doubt you can find a reliable source.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Think of it this way, if you like: Prior to the recent improvements, the article had grown a list of nicknames, including such things as "Archie-Poo", added by people in a casual fashion. Now, we have one nickname, which is explicitly linked to a citation of a source that documents that nickname, indicating quite clearly that any further nicknames will be individually held to the same standard of verifiability. Whilst you may think it inconvenient, by insisting upon good sources for this (and indeed everything else) we are aiming to keep out the other nicknames, and prevent a long list of such nicknames growing by editors simply inventing new ones and adding them. Uncle G 21:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article's references have improved drastically since I voted to delete, and therefore, I think the case to keep has also improved just as drastically. Homestarmy 13:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - notable internet character. Noted also User:DennyColt who created the AfD changed his vote for the article to be retained. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. Orsini 23:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further question to Arthur Rubin. Sorry but this nickname stuff is still bothering me. I see it as a form of degradation that what some "other person" calls you ends up in your biography, especially when unfriendly. I am thinking, Arthur, that the policy of nickname is not a requirement but merely "optional". And further, that the nickname policy varies as per occupation of individual. So that if you are doing a sport figure or artist or comedian or politician that nickname is desirable as a option. But when doing scientists, the other extreme of where scientists are no-nonsense, and have no nickname applied. Also, Arthur, I have read the Wiki biography of at least 100 scientists and not once did I see a nickname attached. And on my page I refer to Richard Feynman, John Bell, Georges Lemaître, Carl Sagan, Wendy Freedman, Alan Sandage, William Tifft, Paul Dirac, to name just a few, and not a single one of them has a nickname in their biography. So I wonder if I am being singled out here. Can you please check to see of the nickname policy is optional or required and if the policy is different for different occupations. Because this is really strange to me that some enemy of me could make up any deprecatory nickname and it ends up on a encyclopedia biography of that person. I could almost bet that the policy is optional. Thanks for your time.

Statistical Count of the editors on this page who have called Archimedes Plutonium as AP Greglocock 2 times Loadmaster 3 times Mike Christie 6 times Arthur Rubin 1 times Keesiwonder 4 times Phiwum 4 times Greg Deeter 2 times

So, what I am going to do is edit the Wikipedia page and scratch out the deprecatory nickname and replace with a valid nickname and cite this Articles of Deletion with the proof that everyone who debates me, falls into the nickname of preference AP. Now AP is close to the "associated press" so I am going to also add A.P..

So can I please get some help from either Uncle G or Arthur Rubin to stop reverting this edit and to cite this actual Articles of Deletion where most of the editors themselves have nicknamed me withou me goading them or prompting them.

Can Uncle G list the relevant paragraphs of this statement "**It's Wikipedia house style to list alternative names in the first section, and it is Wikipedia policy to go with what the sources say" Because I do not see any scientist biographies with nicknames. So are you arbitrarily applying something to Archimedes Plutonium? Can you cite the paragraphs that state -- nicknames are required?

  • Delete. This article attracts Wikipedia editors who do not provide reliable sources for the many claims they want to make about living persons, resulting in continual violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. If there are several high quality, reliable published sources describing why Archimedes Plutonium as a notable Usenet personality, then those sources should be used to support inclusion of the name Archimedes Plutonium in the list at Usenet#Usenet personalities. For biographies of living persons, "reliable sources" means, for example, book-length biographies published by reputable publishers who employ book editors and biographical articles written by professional journalists and published by reputable magazines with fact checkers and editors who review the contents of the articles. There are not enough reliable sources to support an encyclopedia article about Archimedes Plutonium. --JWSchmidt 14:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My sympathy with JWSchmidt's comment A Wikipedia biography of a person who is very much controversial because of his "theory the universe is an atom" not only attracts biased hate storm, but it attracts editors inside Wikipedia who cannot place themselves objectively in maintaining the entry. It is my opinion that biased people of AP such as Eric Francis, Erik Max Francis (whether one and the same as Eric Francis), Tim Skirvin, James Kibo Parry, Uncle Al, are probably established editors of Wikipedia and who have established opposition to AP. A clear example is the nickname issue. Where Wikipedia has not one single scientist entry of a "deprecatory nickname" but when it comes to AP's entry, each and every sentence is looked for the opportunity to mock Mr. Plutonium, and if justification for that mockery is asked for such as what is the nickname policy then a Wikipedia editor such as Uncle G calls it a "house policy". This is what Mr. Plutonium is frustrated about and why he was for deleting this entry, is because the editors of Wikipedia simple cannot give Mr. Plutonium a fair objective shake. There is only one editor that writes with his real name-- Arthur Rubin, and I looked up his Wikipedia entry and there was no nickname mockery. I looked up every scientist connected with the reference to Atom Totality and not a single scientist enty has a nickname. But when it comes to Mr. Plutonium's entry, whenever there is an opportunity to mock him, that opportunity is grabbed at and given justification that it is some "Wikipedia house policy".

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/Archimedes_Plutonium_(2nd)&oldid=1220556933"