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, as last time, and for the exact same reaosns which I quote: "As illustrated [..] this article was poorly sourced and solely comprised of negative sourced information on an entity who's notability is disputed within WP:BIO. The subject of the article is only known for a number of posts he made on Usenet groups, which does not make him inherently notable. Most of the references made on the article are to a college newspaper, which cannot be taken as a reliable and unbiased source of information. The book authored by Eric Francis is one source that cannot be ignored, but there are still no multiple, reliable and independent sources available (Discover magazine makes a transitory note on the subject). There are gross violations of WP:BLP on this article and as the largest source of information on the internet we have a lot of responsibilities towards the society and it's members. The article has done nothing but made a mockery of the person. Wikipedia, as it has been circumstantiated in the past, has the capability of adversely and antagonistically affecting lives of individuals. We do not, and should not harm. That is what BLP means. Moreover, it seems from the logs of the page, that the subject of the article does not wish this article to exist either."

The only modification is that some of his supporters now want it to exist as a hagiography. That doesn't cut it either. I am restoring the redirect. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archimedes Plutonium[edit]

Archimedes Plutonium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article has a long and convoluted history of which I'm mostly ignorant. It was deleted a few months ago because of BLP and notability concerns; the BLP concerns seem to have been addressed (imo) but I don't think the subject is actually notable. The only reliable sources are Discover magazine (apparently a pretty brief mention; I haven't read the article), the Boston Globe (as brief a mention as it's possible to have), and a true crime book. The latter two are unrelated to what Plutonium is internet-famous for, and being questioned by the police generally doesn't make you notable (which is why Wikipedia doesn't have articles for the other two people mentioned in the Boston Globe article). The only real justification for Wikipedia's notability policy is that lets Wikipedia's editors focus their attention on topics that are actually important. I don't think this subject is worth the thousands of hours Wikipedians have invested in it. P4k 20:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I'm short-changing the Boston Globe mention a little bit above I guess, but it's still pretty short.P4k 20:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing my nomination for various reasons. VICTORY FOR USENET.P4k 18:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the Boston Globe mention--- it notes that Plutonium was called in because of his usenet presence. To anyone who was on usenet, omitting Plutonium is head-scratchingly bizzare.Likebox 07:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable and sourced. Colonel Warden 21:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable and sourced. Rewrite math section if necessary.Likebox 02:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've been through this so many times. The mathematics that's now in the article is complete nonsense and badly written nonsense at that. We can argue back and forth ad-infinitum about WP:BLP, but I also propose we can be sensible: This individual has achieved nothing of any scientific value, much less of notable scientific value. Plutonium's not really notable as a scientific crank; his notability if any, is as that of an individual who has become an easy target of ridicule and abuse, and unlike Emperor Norton, he's alive. Couldn't we just leave this guy alone (as has wisely been with other noteworthy living individuals)? --CSTAR 21:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I remember the previous debate about this article, which I had thought was neatly addressed by giving him just the brief entry in Notable Usenet personalities, to which Archimedes Plutonium was a redirect. There's no way we can give him a full article without imposing the standards we would apply to any other full article, i.e., reliable sourcing. Some people find his pronouncements interesting, but no reliable sources have found them interesting, so far as we can tell. He seems never to have attempted the route of conventional publication, which is the way other scholars have got the reputations that justify an article in Wikipedia. EdJohnston 21:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete I was in favor of keeping the article during the last two AFDs because I think that AP is one of the most notable Usenet personalities to emerge. The fact that his crankish writings do not approach coherence, much less plausibility, really isn't relevant: he's notable as a crank, not a theorist. Nonetheless, the last AfD passed and I don't like the recreation of a previously deleted article unless there is some clear change in the situation. Clearly, AP is not more notable now than then. Also, as I see it, the argument then was that it is almost impossible to satisfy BLP when writing about a crank and that certainly hasn't changed. Thus, while opposed to the original deletion, I also oppose this resurrection. Phiwum 21:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we manage to cover other cranks while satisfying BLP- it's often hard work but we have managed it with certain 'nutritionists', NLP gurus etc so articles get there in the end and it's really not grounds for deletion, or all articles discussing the various fruitloops and their theories would have to go.Merkinsmum 22:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query. Can you point to an article that we currently have on a notable eccentric or crank that has no reliable sources commenting on the theory? EdJohnston 22:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not what is being discussed by the above and I, he said its impossible to writte about a crank and satisfy BLP. I was saying it is not, I hesitate to name one here unless it is considered a violation. oh ok then not that I'm calling her a crank but some people question the theories of Gillian McKeith Tony Robbins and others. Sources was not what I meant I was more responding to Phiwum's comment, and saying that we do it successfully in other articles. As to sources, I think someone said above that he's been mentioned in several printed ones, I'm not that knowledgeable about this person though which is why I'm just commenting because I have experience on other articles on people with erm, interesting theories, and it is possible too make them into Good Articles, even.Merkinsmum 23:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Keep his entry in Notable Usenet personalities, which was the result of the 3rd AfD. — Loadmaster 22:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, rewrite if necessary. There are sources. It should be possible to improve this page. --S.dedalus 00:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable, sourced, and clinically insane. JJL 01:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Can people who are saying "notable and sourced" please explain why, address my original comments as to why I think this isn't true, etc.?P4k 01:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• [1] How on earth is over 26,000 Google hits not notable? --S.dedalus 01:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because notability is determined by the presence of reliable sources, not google hits.P4k 01:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You admit yourself that there are several articles in books and magazines. Google hits is then a perfectly valid and often used gage of notability. Furthermore it is unreasonable to demand huge numbers of external sources for a person who is primarily notable for internet work. This person is looks plenty notable to me. --S.dedalus 01:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I explain up top why I don't think those sources are sufficient to meet the notability guideline. There's no reason to hold internet people to a different standard than anyone else.P4k 02:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And google hits are often used but far from valid.P4k 02:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I read that right? This is the FOURTH nomination for deletion? The article is fine. The sources are no worse than any average Wikipedia article. On consideration, I have changed my vote to “strong keep.” --S.dedalus 03:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AP does not have 26,000 hits on Google; it's more like 430 (follow the "hits" chain to the last link). In comparison, my real name gets about 220 Google hits, and I'm certainly not famous. So, yeah, Google hit counts are fairly irrelevant. — Loadmaster 15:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep planty of hits on google. Also found it interesting that I can find conversation of people conspiring to get this article off of wikipedia. Ridernyc 02:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Apparently Mr. Archimedes is also notable for inventing the term search engine bombing in 1997. --S.dedalus 03:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A few sentences at Notable Usenet personalities will cover what is useful in the few reliable published sources. Wikipedia is not the place for original research into the meaning of unpublished/non-peer-reviewed mathematical ideas. --JWSchmidt 04:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not really the point though. This person is probably the most notable Usenet personality. His idea’s are eccentric, and the mathematics may not be necessary in the article. However the PERSON is clearly notable. --S.dedalus 05:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree. The available reliable, published information sources about this "notable person" do not justify an article. The small number of points Wikipedia needs to make can easily be made at Notable Usenet personalities. The Wikipedia community has experimented with allowing a page for "Archimedes Plutonium" and we have learned that it becomes a target for unwelcome original research and a waste of time for community members. When a full-length biography of "Archimedes Plutonium" is published by a reputable publisher, we can reconsider, but for now, deletion of the "Archimedes Plutonium" page is the best path. Editors who want to continue an original research project on "Archimedes Plutonium" can do so at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 15:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If by that last sentence about Wikiversity you mean creating a biographical research entry on AP, that's probably appropriate, but if you mean that AP's theories can be presented as research, it's not (because his Usenet musings are obviously no such thing). — Loadmaster 15:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of "an original research project on Archimedes Plutonium" as being the reading of works attributed to "Archimedes Plutonium" and trying to determine what they mean and what their significance might be. In my view, results from this type of original research are currently being reported on Wikipedia where it is not welcome. I've never read any of the work attributed "Archimedes Plutonium", so I have no basis upon which to characterize it as "research" or anything else. --JWSchmidt 22:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are links to some of his recent musings on sci.math, which are what he calls his "published books", in case you're interested in his "research" writings: #104 Real numbers, #115 Riemann Hypothesis, #121 Poincare Conjecture, #161 Largest prime.

• Keep if the evidence for "Google bombing" is strong enough--that alone is sufficient. DGG (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently there's no evidence for it, so.P4k 05:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm. . . excuse me. Did you look at the link I provided? There IS a source in the Google bomb article. You seem quit eager for this article to be deleted. --S.dedalus 05:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't look, my bad.P4k 05:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is this web page I found with a GIS which supports it: kibom.com, as well as the article on WikiVisual. If AP did indeed coin the term, that small fact can be added to the entry at Notable Usenet personalities. — Loadmaster 16:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is notable and cited. It could use some rewriting, though. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 01:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless AP himself and his sycophants are banned from Wikipedia, and the "theories" section is killed. This nonsense gives Wikipedia a bad name. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.