| Revision as of 03:40, 2 June 2007 editH2g2bob (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,401 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:23, 2 June 2007 edit undoUncle G (talk | contribs)Administrators52,482 edits On sources and failuresNext edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| * '''Allow existence.''' I don't think it's right to say "Keep" because of the BLP concerns here, but this is a ''famous'' internet personality, and it certainly should be covered in some form. Let's build it from the groud up, carefully, from really reliable sources. I don't think it's right to keep his name out of it just because it might be embarassing, but neither should we include it if it's not backed up well in reliable sources. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | * '''Allow existence.''' I don't think it's right to say "Keep" because of the BLP concerns here, but this is a ''famous'' internet personality, and it certainly should be covered in some form. Let's build it from the groud up, carefully, from really reliable sources. I don't think it's right to keep his name out of it just because it might be embarassing, but neither should we include it if it's not backed up well in reliable sources. ]]<sup>]</sup> 20:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Delete / keep deleted''' per nom. Looking at a Google cache I see that a lot of the sourcing seems to be ''The Dartmouth''. Regarding the other source, ''The Dartmouth Murders'', it covers AP as an interesting sidenote because he was briefly considered a suspect. His notability there is not his own, simply the reflected notability of the case and a "notability" and treatment (murder suspect) not befitting this project. Of course we could also '''merge''' to ] under the section "other notable Usenet ''personalities''" (removes tongue from cheek). No, just delete. --] 20:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | * '''Delete / keep deleted''' per nom. Looking at a Google cache I see that a lot of the sourcing seems to be ''The Dartmouth''. Regarding the other source, ''The Dartmouth Murders'', it covers AP as an interesting sidenote because he was briefly considered a suspect. His notability there is not his own, simply the reflected notability of the case and a "notability" and treatment (murder suspect) not befitting this project. Of course we could also '''merge''' to ] under the section "other notable Usenet ''personalities''" (removes tongue from cheek). No, just delete. --] 20:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| **You haven't read properly. The major source, cross-linked to the most and also the first listed, is the book. And an opinion that the book's treatment of Plutonium is as a murder suspect is clearly based upon not having read the book. ] 05:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' There seem to serious problems with the sourcing and too much of the information in the article is either from a primary source or an unreliable source. Its a BLP so we really shouldn't tolerate an article where core facts can't be properly verified. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' There seem to serious problems with the sourcing and too much of the information in the article is either from a primary source or an unreliable source. Its a BLP so we really shouldn't tolerate an article where core facts can't be properly verified. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| **The above statements are more utter rubbish. The only information in the article from unreliable sources was the information sourced from the subject's own autobiography and works, much of which had already been challenged and removed, the unreliability of the subject's autobiography (which xe actually deliberately altered at one point in order to get certain information into the article) having been already pointed out on the talk page. The only information in the article from primary sources were the texts of ''direct quotations'', of things that the subject wrote, that were quoted in other sources and dual-sourced to the originals for accuracy. ] 05:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' The subject is completely non-notable and non-encyclopaedic. According to the opening of the entry itself the entry has posted some comments on the internet and believes the universe is a plutonium atom: i.e., he is completely non-notable. He has no adherents for his supposed theories and no publications. The article was an abuse of a man who in all likelihood was unable to defend himself. Furthermore, he requested deletion, a completely reasonable request in this case. Misplaced Pages can only be better off without this entry. ] 22:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' The subject is completely non-notable and non-encyclopaedic. According to the opening of the entry itself the entry has posted some comments on the internet and believes the universe is a plutonium atom: i.e., he is completely non-notable. He has no adherents for his supposed theories and no publications. The article was an abuse of a man who in all likelihood was unable to defend himself. Furthermore, he requested deletion, a completely reasonable request in this case. Misplaced Pages can only be better off without this entry. ] 22:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Srong delete/keep deleted'''. Judging from the eccentric behaviour of the subject of the article here on Misplaced Pages (if it really is the same person), we're dealing with a rather disturbed individual, who does '''''not''''' want an article about himself. I understand the point that we can't delete an article about a really famous person just because he doesn't want it, but, frankly, the really famous people without whom we couldn't have a credible encyclopaedia (Bush and the Pope come to mind) are most unlikely to object to the existence of an article about them. They are famous enough that we cannot say that the existence of our articles increases their notability. However, this man is either non-notable or borderline notable. Misplaced Pages should be ''proud'' of the principle of not adding to the distress of living people or to the intrusion on their privacy. ] ] 22:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | *'''Srong delete/keep deleted'''. Judging from the eccentric behaviour of the subject of the article here on Misplaced Pages (if it really is the same person), we're dealing with a rather disturbed individual, who does '''''not''''' want an article about himself. I understand the point that we can't delete an article about a really famous person just because he doesn't want it, but, frankly, the really famous people without whom we couldn't have a credible encyclopaedia (Bush and the Pope come to mind) are most unlikely to object to the existence of an article about them. They are famous enough that we cannot say that the existence of our articles increases their notability. However, this man is either non-notable or borderline notable. Misplaced Pages should be ''proud'' of the principle of not adding to the distress of living people or to the intrusion on their privacy. ] ] 22:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' -- per ElinorD. ] 23:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' -- per ElinorD. ] 23:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete.''' The ] rates an article; this fellow does not. He is not sufficiently notable, or sufficiently crazy, or sufficiently interesting. Gene Ray he ain't. Also per BLP, leave the guy alone in his madness. ] 23:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete.''' The ] rates an article; this fellow does not. He is not sufficiently notable, or sufficiently crazy, or sufficiently interesting. Gene Ray he ain't. Also per BLP, leave the guy alone in his madness. ] 23:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ** '''Comment''' Matter of taste, I suppose, but why do you think that Gene Ray is more notable than Archimedes Plutonium? Seem like two of a kind to me. ] 23:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *** '''Comment''': On Usenet back when that was a more important part of the internet than the www, I'd say Plutonium was more notable than Gene Ray. Time Cube made a successful transition to Web notarity; A.Pu did not. -- ] 02:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ****Usenet was never more than a techie's ghetto. The teeming multitudes never accessed Usenet or even knew what it was. Everyone uses the www, and Gene Ray has reached millions. ] 03:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' as a biased, poorly (at best) sourced article about a non notable, non encyclopedic person who has asked that the article be removed. How many more reasons did you need? Oh, how about this one... the deleting admin is usually right when it comes to BLP matters and those saying keep are wrong more often than not. Could be not this time, I suppose, but that's not the way to bet. ++]: ]/] 01:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' as a biased, poorly (at best) sourced article about a non notable, non encyclopedic person who has asked that the article be removed. How many more reasons did you need? Oh, how about this one... the deleting admin is usually right when it comes to BLP matters and those saying keep are wrong more often than not. Could be not this time, I suppose, but that's not the way to bet. ++]: ]/] 01:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| **In this case, the deleting administrator is wrong. Pretty much all of the statements in the nomination, written by that administrator, are wrong. If you read the contributions of {{user|Superdeterminism}} you will see what are almost certainly the "e-mail complaints" here. I suspect that the unfortunate truth here is that the people who handled the e-mail complaints took those complaints entirely at face value without checking their substance, when in fact what they state, about Eric Francis and about others, is not in fact actually true at all. (Example: Archimedes Plutonium claims that Misplaced Pages has been mocking him for ten years. Aside from the fact that he also makes this exact same claim about the entire population of Dartmouth College, leading to the conclusion that "X has been mocking AP for ten years" is a formula, ''Misplaced Pages hasn't existed for ten years''.) In this instance, uncritically buying into the worldview of the complainant is (for obvious reasons) unwise. The people handling the e-mail complaints system have failed in this instance. ] 05:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' with no objections to a properly sourced and balanced article being created. Being as prolific as he was I do believe he is notable within that circle through actions of his own. I would suggest creating an new article in the userspace and moving it when it is ready. ]] 02:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' with no objections to a properly sourced and balanced article being created. Being as prolific as he was I do believe he is notable within that circle through actions of his own. I would suggest creating an new article in the userspace and moving it when it is ready. ]] 02:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep'''. Notable part of Usenet culture of the 1990s; as people and things particularly well known in significant segments of internet culture seem to be allowed in Misplaced Pages, I think that alone is sufficent. If the article sucks it should be rewritten. -- ] 02:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''. Notable part of Usenet culture of the 1990s; as people and things particularly well known in significant segments of internet culture seem to be allowed in Misplaced Pages, I think that alone is sufficent. If the article sucks it should be rewritten. -- ] 02:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 05:23, 2 June 2007
Archimedes Plutonium
AfDs for this article:- Archimedes Plutonium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
I deleted this as being comprised solely of poorly sourced negative material about a living individual. I explicitly invited people to contribute to writing a properly sourced version, but the response was instead to simply undelete it ("unilaterally" to use that phrase; all admin actions are of course unilateral, that point seems lost on a few poeple).
The major source is The Dartmouth, a college newspaper. In other words, sophomoric sniggering. According to my alma mater's student newspaper, edited by someoen who is now an editor on a major UK daily paper, I was the president of the university's Christian Union. In fact, I was never even a member. Student newspapers are not renowned for the highest standards of fact-checking, and certianly not in pieces on folks the students like to snigger about.
The second most prominent set of sources is Usenet posts. Enough said.
This is a vile, hateful, despicable piece of drivel. Maybe a good article could be wrtittne on the subject, one which does not gleefully take the piss out of someone who appears to be mentally ill, but this is so far from being that article as to make the path from A to B incredibly hard to see.
The article is currently deleted. Good. We should not leave defamatory articles which have triggered email complaints hanging around in mainspace while we examine our navels. That should not stop a debate, which should be about the subject. Perhaps we can see some evidence of intelligent sober critique, for example? Maybe a userspace workup of a better artcle? Guy (Help!) 19:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete / keep deleted per nom. BLP violations like this should not be tolerated - no reliable sources, not near NPOV, etc. This article should not be restored. Ral315 » 19:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Archimedes Plutonium is a particularly notable Usenet denizen. I don't understand how or why the article has been deleted outside of the normal deletion process. Phiwum 19:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Everything except the fact that it's a real individual is a notable Internet meme. In fact, it was a notable internet meme before there was an Internet. If we need to excise the real name of the real individual to preserve WP:BLP, that would be fine. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep ::I agree this does not come under BLP. This is another example of people who deliberate campaign in the most effective ways to make themselves publicly known within a certain circle, and then object to an objective article describing what they have done--conceivably as a way to increase the publicity. A highly visible fight with WP over the article has that effect--it amounts to gaming. Those who would delete the article are playing into the hands of the eccentric individual--he might well be asking for as long and complicated a multiple attempt at deletions with all possible channels. I see no reason why we need cooperate with him, and the best way of avoid beingpulled into his dames is purely objective article, and a firm insistence on keeping it. As an editing concern, the details of his personal life are not necessary, and soime other sections may be over-detailed. There are true BLP problems in WP, but this is not one of them. DGG 19:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- The statements in the nomination are utter rubbish. The major source is a book, published by St. Martin's Press of New York, N.Y., that devotes pages 87–93 to this person. The Usenet posts are only used as primary sources for the subject's own words, to back up the very same quotations as given in the book, for accuracy. The people handling the e-mail complaints system have failed in this instance. Certainly they failed to actually read the article if they thought that the book, listed as the very first entry in the references section and cross-linked more than any other citation, wasn't the major source. Uncle G 19:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Allow existence. I don't think it's right to say "Keep" because of the BLP concerns here, but this is a famous internet personality, and it certainly should be covered in some form. Let's build it from the groud up, carefully, from really reliable sources. I don't think it's right to keep his name out of it just because it might be embarassing, but neither should we include it if it's not backed up well in reliable sources. Mangojuice 20:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete / keep deleted per nom. Looking at a Google cache I see that a lot of the sourcing seems to be The Dartmouth. Regarding the other source, The Dartmouth Murders, it covers AP as an interesting sidenote because he was briefly considered a suspect. His notability there is not his own, simply the reflected notability of the case and a "notability" and treatment (murder suspect) not befitting this project. Of course we could also merge to Barbara Schwarz under the section "other notable Usenet personalities" (removes tongue from cheek). No, just delete. --Justanother 20:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- You haven't read properly. The major source, cross-linked to the most and also the first listed, is the book. And an opinion that the book's treatment of Plutonium is as a murder suspect is clearly based upon not having read the book. Uncle G 05:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete There seem to serious problems with the sourcing and too much of the information in the article is either from a primary source or an unreliable source. Its a BLP so we really shouldn't tolerate an article where core facts can't be properly verified. Spartaz 21:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- The above statements are more utter rubbish. The only information in the article from unreliable sources was the information sourced from the subject's own autobiography and works, much of which had already been challenged and removed, the unreliability of the subject's autobiography (which xe actually deliberately altered at one point in order to get certain information into the article) having been already pointed out on the talk page. The only information in the article from primary sources were the texts of direct quotations, of things that the subject wrote, that were quoted in other sources and dual-sourced to the originals for accuracy. Uncle G 05:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The subject is completely non-notable and non-encyclopaedic. According to the opening of the entry itself the entry has posted some comments on the internet and believes the universe is a plutonium atom: i.e., he is completely non-notable. He has no adherents for his supposed theories and no publications. The article was an abuse of a man who in all likelihood was unable to defend himself. Furthermore, he requested deletion, a completely reasonable request in this case. Misplaced Pages can only be better off without this entry. FNMF 22:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Srong delete/keep deleted. Judging from the eccentric behaviour of the subject of the article here on Misplaced Pages (if it really is the same person), we're dealing with a rather disturbed individual, who does not want an article about himself. I understand the point that we can't delete an article about a really famous person just because he doesn't want it, but, frankly, the really famous people without whom we couldn't have a credible encyclopaedia (Bush and the Pope come to mind) are most unlikely to object to the existence of an article about them. They are famous enough that we cannot say that the existence of our articles increases their notability. However, this man is either non-notable or borderline notable. Misplaced Pages should be proud of the principle of not adding to the distress of living people or to the intrusion on their privacy. ElinorD (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete -- per ElinorD. Jkelly 23:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. The Emperor Norton rates an article; this fellow does not. He is not sufficiently notable, or sufficiently crazy, or sufficiently interesting. Gene Ray he ain't. Also per BLP, leave the guy alone in his madness. Herostratus 23:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Matter of taste, I suppose, but why do you think that Gene Ray is more notable than Archimedes Plutonium? Seem like two of a kind to me. Phiwum 23:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: On Usenet back when that was a more important part of the internet than the www, I'd say Plutonium was more notable than Gene Ray. Time Cube made a successful transition to Web notarity; A.Pu did not. -- Infrogmation 02:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Usenet was never more than a techie's ghetto. The teeming multitudes never accessed Usenet or even knew what it was. Everyone uses the www, and Gene Ray has reached millions. Herostratus 03:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: On Usenet back when that was a more important part of the internet than the www, I'd say Plutonium was more notable than Gene Ray. Time Cube made a successful transition to Web notarity; A.Pu did not. -- Infrogmation 02:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Matter of taste, I suppose, but why do you think that Gene Ray is more notable than Archimedes Plutonium? Seem like two of a kind to me. Phiwum 23:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a biased, poorly (at best) sourced article about a non notable, non encyclopedic person who has asked that the article be removed. How many more reasons did you need? Oh, how about this one... the deleting admin is usually right when it comes to BLP matters and those saying keep are wrong more often than not. Could be not this time, I suppose, but that's not the way to bet. ++Lar: t/c 01:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- In this case, the deleting administrator is wrong. Pretty much all of the statements in the nomination, written by that administrator, are wrong. If you read the contributions of Superdeterminism (talk · contribs) you will see what are almost certainly the "e-mail complaints" here. I suspect that the unfortunate truth here is that the people who handled the e-mail complaints took those complaints entirely at face value without checking their substance, when in fact what they state, about Eric Francis and about others, is not in fact actually true at all. (Example: Archimedes Plutonium claims that Misplaced Pages has been mocking him for ten years. Aside from the fact that he also makes this exact same claim about the entire population of Dartmouth College, leading to the conclusion that "X has been mocking AP for ten years" is a formula, Misplaced Pages hasn't existed for ten years.) In this instance, uncritically buying into the worldview of the complainant is (for obvious reasons) unwise. The people handling the e-mail complaints system have failed in this instance. Uncle G 05:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete with no objections to a properly sourced and balanced article being created. Being as prolific as he was I do believe he is notable within that circle through actions of his own. I would suggest creating an new article in the userspace and moving it when it is ready. Viridae 02:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable part of Usenet culture of the 1990s; as people and things particularly well known in significant segments of internet culture seem to be allowed in Misplaced Pages, I think that alone is sufficent. If the article sucks it should be rewritten. -- Infrogmation 02:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please: No wheel warring This AfD was started to decide if this article is notable. Please do not delete before we reach consensus here, and then please formally close the AfD. --h2g2bob (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I assumed this was deleted half way through the AfD, but it looks like it was deleted just before the AfD opened. Weird. --h2g2bob (talk) 03:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. This article is currently deleted, and has been for the duration of this AfD. It should therefore be discussed at the DRV now open, not here. The way, the truth, and the light 03:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This has been discussed before and nothing has changed between then and now. The sourcing was a bit thin, but it does exist, and dubious facts had been removed. No evidence that the article itself is unsalvageable. We don't delete articles because the subjects tell us to — or at least we didn't. It's a sad day; looks like Daniel Brandt is winning. *** Crotalus *** 03:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Regret. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. Too bad. — Loadmaster 03:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)