Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Likebox/Archimedes Plutonium

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was SNOW DELETE Nobody has stated a policy-based reason to keep the page, and there are an overwhelming number of deletes, and logic dictates the page has no purpose except to further disruption of Wikipedia -- so it and any copies must go. I've removed a bunch of nonsensical sockpuppet comments from this page, per WP:BAN, and closed this early to avoid further disruption, and since the outcome is obvious. Jehochman Talk 17:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Likebox/Archimedes Plutonium[edit]

Userspace copy of Archimedes Plutonium, which was deleted per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium (4th nomination). User is now indef'ed and page (and its talkpage) is long-term magnet for edits by IPs known to be used by subject of article, who is himself apparently blockable per WP:NLT and definitely per long-term disruptive edits of articles about himself (soapboxing, WP:OR, WP:OWN, etc.). DMacks (talk) 09:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. The above long-winded nonsense is clearly from Archimedes Plutonium himself, as you can see if you look at the extended comments by this IP at Talk:Usenet celebrity. It should be largely ignored. Archimedes Plutonium redirects to Usenet celebrity,which is the article he is referring to above. That article has a very neutral paragraph on Archimedes Plutonium. Clearly that paragraph in article space can be monitored much more carefully and easily than the subject of this MfD which is in user space. User:DMacks is correct. This article should be deleted. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — If keeping this page provides a harmless place for AP to do his edits instead of on the Usenet celebrity page, then perhaps it serves an (arguably) useful purpose. On the other hand, until the time comes that anything in this page is actually citable in an actual publication (which will most likely be never), the contents of this page cannot be incorporated into a main section article of its own. Which means that its continued existence is highly questionable. — Loadmaster (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I can only comment on the portion dealing with the point of this page, which is the deletion of the user page; the rest of your comments are derogatory and irrelevant. Most of the content of the page is original research, and thus fails Wikipedia's rules for notability and inclusion. None of the citations on the page refer to AP's (your) ideas as actual theories or ideas that are taken seriously by anyone in the scientific or mathematics community. The remainder of the page is biographical information, but again, unless someone can provide at least one citation that demonstrates that AP is famous enough beyond the infamy he enjoys in the few Usenet newsgroups he frequents, the sentence or two already devoted to him in Wikipedia suffices. The remaining citations are links to AP's postings in the newsgroups and his own home page, which are never sufficient for use as bona fide references on Wikipedia. — Loadmaster (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like AP has now !voted three times to keep this article in user space. They should of course be ignored. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four times by my count, but regardless, closing admin will surely recognize them. DMacks (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - with Likebox gone, the article is pointless (even thought is long-term magnet for edits by IPs known to be used by subject of article is clearly false; as the edit history [1] shows, there has been precisely one IP edit since L was indef'd William M. Connolley (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fascinating well researched bio' of subject who anyone from the physics usenet days will remember. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 03:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may be, but how are the few extra biographical sentences more useful than what is already present in the Usenet celebrity article? — Loadmaster (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is any bio useful? And it's more than just a few extra sentences. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 08:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:STALEDRAFT. The only possible home for such material is Usenet celebrity and I don't see any need to expand what is already there. Let the IPs go host it somewhere else; it has no business on Wikipedia. —UncleDouggie (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It appears that it's not going to become a full article any day soon. Lack of RS, etc. If this person's "science" was in use somewhere in the real world, then I could see a point to merge some of the science stuff somewhere, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I see that the other mergable content (usage of "search engine bombing") already appears in Google bomb. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2011 (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 page'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:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Likebox/Archimedes_Plutonium&oldid=1078590263"