Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Usenet personalities (2nd nomination)


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Usenet personalities
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

What? This article is relying on Google Groups (aka USENET, aka a PRIMARY SOURCE) as its source of information. How does this not violate WP:BLP and our general policy on notability and verifiability again? Oh and beyond that, citing ticklishguyscasting.net as a source? Sickening. Just sickening. There are no logical rules for inclusion or exclusion on this page. DELETE JBsupreme (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep "Sickening. Just sickening.", is a prime example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT
 * If you don't find the referencing adequate, then fix it. That's not a reason for deleting a whole article, certainly not a reason for deleting a list.
 * If you find entries against WP:BLP, then of course we need to fix that entry to meet policy. Still no reason to delete the list.
 * The inclusion criteria are broad: Usenet and notable. Not ideal, as this excludes many people who are considered notable on and by Usenet, but WP requires external sourcing as well. However we can still support a list article on WP: Some of Usenet's notable people make it to WP:RS notice too and that then warrants their mention here. Personally I'd rather be reading a "List of Usenet physics crackpots", categorized conveniently into the anti-GR and the anti-QM loons, but I doubt I'll ever get that onto WP 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Andy Dingley. What sickens me is that this article violates WP:BLP, and in multiple instances, cites sources such as Usenet and ticklishguyscasting.net for some rather contentious information.  So you're damn straight I don't like that, but that has nothing to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Try to follow along.  JBsupreme (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There's no WP policy problem with citing Usenet as a reference. It's a problem if primary material is the _only_ citation for someone's notability, but our policy is a requirement for secondary sourcing, not a ban against noting primary material. Most of the reasons against primary material also don't apply to Usenet, as they originate with the difficulties of its verification and the Deja / Google Groups archives avoid this. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a policy issue, and it is the reliability of such sources. Usenet posts can be, and regularly are, forged in other people's names.  (We even have an article on one particular instance of such forgery: Godfrey v Demon Internet Service.)  One cannot assume that because a post has a person's name in the "From" field, that person actually authored it.  The concept of reliability is founded upon being able to correctly identify the author so that that identified author's reputation for fact checking and accuracy can be determined.  In high contrast to Usenet postings with no authentication, it is easy to determine that, for example, this source was genuinely published in The Chronicle of Higher Education, and so is subject to The Chronicle's reputation for fact checking and accuracy.  Uncle G (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * DELETE Horrible when an encyclopedia that is supposed to be "objective" has subjective articles. What is next? Some editor's list of songs he hates? Some editor's list of politicians he hates? It is very difficult to have a list of people-- pro or con -- defined to a behaviour. The Usenet Personality list is predominantly a "bad connation" of the people listed. This is imbalanced in that we are to think the only notable people have a "bad reputation". To be Usenet Notable means being a murderer or a spammer? What about the hundreds of "good posters that are notable"? This list cannot be distinguished from -- Wikipedia editors opinion of who are crackpot or insane posters in the view of that editor. If the list had been unambiguous-- everyone with a full page article in Wired magazine. Then the list could fly. Otherwise it is a writers list of who he thinks are insane posters. Also, it is hideous to see people sandwiched inbetween convicted murderers on the same list 216.16.54.157 (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)LogicMaster
 * — 216.16.54.157 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I hate to use the spa template and I'm strongly opposed to the notion that a "single posting" equates to some unfair bias or less valued opinion. However there is evidence (WHOIS pointing to an obscure local ISP) that you're a single poster IPSocking between anon IPs (probably innocently, as your ISP dynamically re-allocates you). These anon IPs have already recently been "contributing" to the talk: page (and reverted as vandalism on occasion) where they have also claimed to be Archimedes Plutonium, one of the people listed here - that's a WP:COI that you ought to declare openly. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is this even up for a vote? Is there a Editor in Chief at Wikipedia? Rules have been violated-- the list membership is totally ambiguous. Hence this article should be removed, without voting. This list violates the Rules. Nothing further should be voted on, no concensus, other than the realization that rules are violated. 216.16.54.157 (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC) LogicMaster — 216.16.54.157 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. The criteria are stated, key parts of the content are referenced, that's about all there is to say in response to the nom. Previous related AfD:
 * Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium
 * Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium (2nd)
 * Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium (third nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium (4th nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/List of Usenet personalities
 * The article now does address the previous concerns (and appears to have been created to collect the viable tidbits from several now-deleted predecessors): it is objectively written in tone and content, and has least some third-party sourcing as well as primary. No, not every entry is perfect, but the page itself is not a total loss and I don't see any serious unsourced/defamatory BLP problems. The article talk-page is full of discussion hashing out some of the more controversial entries and numerous editors there found the refs to be sufficient and reliable to include. I would also draw attention to the long history of (well beyond "disruptive" IMO) edits from a certain IP-block on this page, its talk-page, and the talk-page of the predecessor article (now kept as a talk archive), claiming to be one of the entries in the article. Making oneself a public and known figure and then complaining about being documented as such doesn't fly for me. DMacks (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What is the point in having Rules, if violations of Wikipedia Rules, results in voting? It seems to me, the commonsense, when a article is in violation of the Rules which guide a encyclopedia, that the situation is not given a vote, but that a senior editor of Wikipedia comes to the dispute and looks to see if a Rule is violated-- ambiguity of membership inclusion or disclusion from a list, and then simply, just deletes the page. Surely, this must be a Rule in itself within Wikipedia-- Rules broken require the senior editor of Wikipedia to "not have a voting stance" but a deletion of the offending page. 216.16.55.41 (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC) LogicMaster
 * Keep — Firstly, the purpose of the list is to provide a place to mention people who are considered notable by the Usenet community at large. The people (and user-IDs) listed in the article are in fact documented as notable. While it may not be appropriate that the article is titled "List of ...", remember that it was originally titled "Notable Usenet Personalities". This article provides a place for these people to be mentioned on Wikipedia who otherwise would not have an entire individual article devoted to them. No editorial rules have been violated, and the rules for biographies are strictly adhered to. — Loadmaster (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment — As to the comments by 216.16.*.* (who calls himself "LogicMaster"), these are obviously being made by Archimedes Plutonium himself, one of the people named in the article. His main complaint is that he is categorized as "eccentric", and that his entry is placed in the same section as "a murderer" (Valery Fabrikant). His entry provides a perfect case in point, though, for this article: AP is well-known on the sci.math and sci.physics newsgroups; this fact is well documented in published sources; everything mentioned in the article is accurate and neutral in tone (and derived from his own newsgroup postings); his theories have been described in numerous places as "crackpot" (or worse); and his newsgroup postings have been described as a public example of typical crank behavior. His displeasure at the labels that the outside world gave him, and Wikipedia's sourcing of those facts, do not provide sufficient reasons to delete this article. His accusations of "rule violations", his ad hominem attacks on WP editors, and his claim that a handful of WP editors are "hate-mongers" bent on smearing his name are unfounded and irrelevant. — Loadmaster (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Response Your own entire reply above is laced with personal attacks and allegations which cannot possibly be verified. Please redact them quickly so I don't have to.  JBsupreme (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Redacting" (which doesn't mean what you think) another editor's comments here would be vandalism. Don't do it, unless you're working towards a block. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment — Sorry, but I fail to see where I am personally attacking anyone. (1) AP is well-known on several Usenet newsgroups, and a simple Google search verifies that most of the people on those newsgroups consider him a crank. (2) The published sources cited in his entry in the article mention that very same observation (have you read the sources cited?). (3) It is a certainty that it is AP himself posting from IP addresses 216.16.55.*, as this is the address of the dial-up service used by AP in South Dakota, and he has cross-posted the contents of his recent WP edits to sci.math et al. (4) I am quoting what he wrote himself, both on Wikipedia and on sci.math, for the reasons as to why he wants his entry (or the entire article) deleted. As I said, his complaints do not constitute sufficient reasons for deletion, and they certainly do not uncover any violations of WP policies. Please indicate where I've crossed the line from documented verifiable fact into personal opinion, because I don't see it. — Loadmaster (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * John Baez was on this list early on. But even he could not stomach it, seeing that it was a Wikipedia Editor's Crackpot List, thinly disguised, thinly veiled as Usenet Personalities. So if John Baez is taken off the list with a simple email request. Why is Loadmaster not affording others who do not want to be on this smear list?? Archimedes Plutonium requested several times to be removed as easily as John Baez was removed. If Abian were alive, I know how he would react to this list, as he reacted so many times to Usenet Crackpot lists in the 1990s, through gentle persuasion. A list that should and did have John Baez, yet allows him to go but gestapo-style keeps others is a list that no encyclopedia should ever have. 216.16.57.35 (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC) LogicMaster — 216.16.57.35 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Wikipedia's Rules on Lists have been violated-- ambiguous membership'''. This is not a matter for voting on, but a matter for a senior editor to step forward and delete the list. 216.16.57.35 (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)LogicMaster — 216.16.57.35 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You've already been quite loud and clear about how you feel. Repeating yourself does not help. DMacks (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here and on the talk-page, the removal of Baez at his own urging has been mentioned. Link please? DMacks (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk-page notes that the above comments are not how it actually happened, which is in keeping with 216's pattern of making baseless assertions related to content removal (see recent comments in archived talk-page). DMacks (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the edit by Scott MacDonald (2009-08-24) that removed the entry for Baez. No evidence whatsoever about a request from Baez, nor has anyone ever requested that the full article John C. Baez be deleted. — Loadmaster (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article accomplishes what it says: describe individuals that gained notoriety on usenet. I find this to be a useful compilation, myself. I agree with responses above that this deletion proposal results from a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a reason to delete. The article meets criteria for inclusion, and it should be improved to correct deficiencies. Deletion is not the answer to such deficiencies. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Its ironic that you make a WP:USEFUL argument to keep all the while citing a completely incorrect attribution of IDONTLIKEIT. JBsupreme (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Attribution looks correct to me. I find it curious that you mischaracterize my entire argument (as opposed to one short sentence I made) as WP:USEFUL. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Question for Mr. Supreme I would like to know what Wikipedia rules there are when a violation of the Rules occurs and then, instead of deleting the violation-page, we have a circus of voting going on. It seems logical to me when we have a bank robbery, that we do not enlist the public at a ballot box to vote on sending the police after the offenders of the rules. We simply send in the police. Rules of Lists were broken for Wikipedia, and I find this "voting booth stance" as rather to put it mildly-- obnoxious action. I think, Mr. Supreme, that there must be a Wikipedia rule, that a senior editor steps into this situation-- sees rules violated and chucks the page out the window. As the violin virtuoso Andre Rieu remarked "am I right on this?" 216.16.57.227 (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC) LogicMaster — 216.16.57.227 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This is not a vote. This is a place where we present arguments. The decision to keep or delete is based on a combination of consensus and the quality of the arguments. I have seen deletion decisions overturned because the "keep" arguments were deemed higher in quality. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, well, if it is an argument and quality of argument page, then I think a word or two in the headers about "voting delete or keep is in order" for as it stands at the moment, virtually everyone is misled into thinking that in the end of this process the "deletes and keeps are tallied" and the decision resting on that. So I think it is preferable to warn contributors to not add "delete or keep" for that sends a wrong message. And to warn contributors it is the quality of their statements that is under consideration. The tenor of my statements has always been that encyclopedia's are in the knowledge business, and not the fashion business of someone's idea of a list of bad songs, list of good clothing, list of Usenet posters. That once a encyclopedia strays into these gray areas of someone's idea of a list, then the encyclopedia has gone off the edge. Tribble's list, would be different from every other person who was tasked to make a list of Usenet posters. However, Tribble's list of Canadian Prime Ministers would be the same list as other taskers. So once encyclopedia's start doing "editor's lists" they have strayed far too far away from the knowledge business and are into the crude shopping mart tabloid stands. 216.16.54.244 (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)LogicMaster — 216.16.54.244 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment – This is the type of article and controversy that sets Wikipedia apart, for the good or bad, from other staid, dusty references. The article definitely needs a complete makeover, including the name.  More personalities need to be added like Zeus, Jack Mingo and Bill Palmer.  The best way to go appears to be an earnest effort to improve the existing article, and to continue this work until it becomes a featured article on Wikipedia.    .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.   23:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, the article was originally titled Notable Usenet personalities, but was renamed as a list and the "Notable" part was unfortunately dropped. — Loadmaster (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I left a note on the talk page about a name change. And I noticed that there was a little box near the top that stated that the deletion process resulted in "no consensus".  If this is so, then who would we turn to in order to remove the deletion template at the top of the article page? (or was that little box on the talk page the result of the first nomination?)    .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.   04:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That box is indeed the previous AfD (which is where its link points), not the present one. I upgraded the template to clarify. DMacks (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, DMacks! At first (after you'd altered the template) I did a double-take and thought I'd misread it before.  Now it's very clear.  And those who keep citing "lists" ought to read Faith, so they can get that article deleted for listing all the various faiths, or Celebrity with the same outcome.  We may want to seriously consider using the Celebrity article as a formatting example to spiff up the "Notable Usenet personalities" page when all this deletion-nomination stuff is silenced.    .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.   21:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There is at least 4 reliable sources here and I think that satisfies the notability policy. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The sourcing for a lot of these is really pathetic... many of these entries boil down to "I read about it on Usenet 10 years ago, take my word for it". --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ATTENTION CLOSING ADMINISTRATOR, WHOEVER YOU MAY BE I understand that the majority of those who have commented here are of the mind to continue to host this "list" on Wikipedia. I still believe, quite firmly, that the overwhelming host of "ILIKEIT" and "USEFUL" type comments do not override the sorry state of sources provided and the glaring WP:BLP issues which continue to remain.  JBsupreme (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that's your opinion but I still count 4 sources that satisfy the RS policy and that make the associated subjects satisfy notability. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I do think an admin should remove the stuff sourced to unreliable sources (some of these appear to just be cited to the newsgroup with no further info). I'd do it myself but I think an admin doing it would have more credibility. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Page view Statistics is very revealing as to "ILIKEIT" "USEFUL" and gives added meaning to what a encyclopedia is all about and the deterioration or misuse of the concept of "encyclopedia" for other than its thoughtof role-- dispenser of objective facts. Listed in the article is "fine structure constant" which shows a viewer statistic of 6,000 hits in April and "electron dot cloud" of 26,000 hits, whereas Usenet Personalities shows 2,000 hits for April. The point is that people are not running to a encyclopedia for "subjective lists written by editors with some axe to grind" but are going to encyclopedia's for that of objective unbiased knowledge of what most people would call "remote facts". If an encyclopedia allows for subjective editorializing, it is on the course of a slippery slope into whether much of anything is reliable in Wikipedia. 216.16.54.189 (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)LogicMaster — 216.16.54.189 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You really need to stop describing this article as a list based on personal opinion. As anyone can see quite plainly from the article history and the purpose heading on the talk page, this list was created as a place to collect summaries of documented notable Usenet posters. The original edit was a short list containing links to existing articles on Wikipedia, taken mostly from Category:Usenet people. Subsequent edits show the collective work of many contributions made by many editors. As I've stated before, any editor's personal opinion of any of the people listed in the article is irrelevant (as it should be), and your continued claims to the contrary are baseless. — Loadmaster (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Do the editors of Wikipedia ever get any training in the difference between objectivity and subjectivity? In the first paragraph of this list speaks of -- subjectivity in chosing who is notable. I would hazard to guess that many people have written on the subject of what makes a encyclopedia so different from almost all other forums. Certainly, objectivity would be the highest priority, for it is as close to the truth as possible. If people want lists of crackpots or cranks or good restaurants or poor songs, they can go to the Usenet itself where plenty of people make up these subjective list contraptions. Why should a encyclopedia stoop to that level of non-objectivity? Wikipedia editors are too much chasing after sources, but seem to have lost touch with what makes encyclopedia so valuable and distinctive. It is not from editors making up lists, but because of the drive to objectivity and the drive to eliminate subjectivity. Now let me give you a probability scenario of the author of the Usenet Personality List, is likely to be overly religious and thus would likely want to make up a list of people who have ideas that oppose his religion. And thus likely to compose a list of scientists who have antireligion views and sandwich them in amoungst criminals, murders, crackpots and cranks. Subjectivity in list making is probably one of the worst forms of subjectivity and propaganda. So it is likely, not certain, that the author of the list hates an Atom Totality theory and is tasked by his church to compose a list that sandwiches the theory in amoungst murderers and crackpots. So instead of seeing this type of feud and fighting and blacklisting going on in Usenet itself where the theory is being debated, we have Wikipedia picked up as a surrogate forum to continue a subjective propagandizing by a religion group that wants to target the Atom Totality theory. They want to target Darwin Evolution and so they creep into Wikipedia and seed their subjectivity and propaganda. Stuff like this was never suitable for an encyclopedia, but since Wikipedia is so new and so loose and open, a flood of propaganda, blacklisting and oceans of subjectivity come flooding in. Wikipedia should not be called an encyclopedia if they allow this torrent of subjectivity. Encyclopedia's are not Fashion Statements, not opinionated, subjective lists. Unambiguity of list membership is there for a very good reason-- otherwise it is a subjective list. I do not know if the world's most famous encyclopedia editor-- James Clerk Maxwell ever discussed the difference between objectivity and subjectivity and the importance of omitting all subjectivity from an encyclopedia. But from my experience of Wikipedia editors, I have never seen anyone take the stance of objectivity versus subjectivity, and that is pretty alarming, for it means that Wikipedia should not be deemed an encyclopedia. 216.16.57.187 (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)LogicMaster — 216.16.57.187 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Above user is bordering on getting himself a rangeblock for repeated NPA violations (as well as evading (though maybe not intentionally) an existing block on one of the IPs). DMacks (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to see DMack rise to be the editor in chief of Wikipedia. Let us make a "list of Notable Wikipedia editors" once the above list is revamped. But, kidding aside.
 * No Original Research in Wikipedia, also means no Wikipedia entry of that ongoing research debate. Wikipedia has a rule that no original research. The Atom Totality theory is original research, and that prohibits Wikipedia from having a entry on it. But, it should also prohibit Wikipedia from having a entry in a list because it is original research that is being debated. So when Wikipedia has the Atom Totality theory listed, Wikipedia is taking a "conclusionary stance" on the theory and classifying it as "eccentric". It is rather classified as a "Rival theory" not a "eccentric theory". It is original research that is in the middle of debate especially on Usenet. So for Wikipedia to enter this debate and classifying it as "eccentric" is way out of bounds, as per the rule of Wikipedia-- no original research. That means Wikipedia is not allowed to classify original research either. 216.254.227.46 (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)LogicMaster — 216.254.227.46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Wikipedia's version of a crank crackpot list-- gone encyclopedic I was around in the wild-west 1990s of the Usenet where about everyone with idle hands posted their own version of a crank or crackpot list. Sci.physics abounded in flame-wars, especially when Bullock living in Japan near KEK posted his Crackpot list. These things are nothing but Subjectivity in action, and to see Wikipedia stoop to this sort of nonsense is a pitiful shame. Wikipedia has some sort of rule about "no original research". The Atom Totality Theory is new original research. It is being debated the world over. Like all new theories it has few adherents but as time goes on, time goes by the numbers increase as the case of all new theories that are true. In the case of the Atom Totality theory, Wikipedia has no right in Prejudging, in biasing, in wrongly classifying the Atom Totality theory. This Wikipedia entry was set up and designed to cast a dark and bad spotlight on the Atom Totality theory by filling it with murderers sandwiched in between convicts and cranks and all other sorts of suggestions-- paranoid, threatening, crank, crackpot, kook. This Wikipedia entry is a smear campaign lifted from the wild west days of Usenet where a few editors of Wikipedia are using the encyclopedia for their own propaganda against a new theory of science that scares them. They do the same thing for the Darwin Evolution theory that scares them and their religion. The Atom Totality Theory is new, original research. It is being debated around the world. It has found its way into Wikipedia, but Wikipedia has no right to prejudge and PreConclude the theory. Wikipedia has the right to "tell what it is" but it has no right in classifying it as crank or crackpot. That is the job of science and it may take 50 years as it took almost 50 years for Continental Drift to be judged. So Wikipedia should not be taking sides on the issue of the Atom Totality Theory. This entire page was set up to pack the Atom Totality Theory in amoungst some shady other listees. Wikipedia has no right in calling the Atom Totality theory as "eccentric", no matter how many people dislike it and print it in a newspaper, for that is the process of debate as to true or false. An encyclopedia cannot take sides on NEW ORIGINAL RESEARCH. 216.16.54.64 (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)LogicMaster — 216.16.54.64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The ideas are verifiably non-science/eccentris/crackpot, not just "unproven or original in WP editors' opinions". That's the standard here: cited reliable sources. There's no way around it here...multiple reliable sources state it, so we can state it. DMacks (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * DMacks obviously is not a scientist and has no science abilities because a scientist knows that a Original New Idea can take upwards of 50 years or more to become the Mainstream-science such as Continental Drift. And so for a Wikipedia editor to come busting into Original Research of Atom Totality Theory is a very antagonistic attacking and prejudice, especially because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia wannabe. So we have an editor who is ignorant of the Science Process and who is flagrantly biasing a New Original Theory of Science. Wikipedia has the right to describe the Atom Totality theory, but the process of finding out whether it is true or not true may take 50 years. So could the Editors in Chief of Wikipedia please keep these editors like DMacks or Andy Dingley from being too caustic and from being so "disregarding of the rules of Wikipedia" rules designed to keep out their subjective bias, designed to protect living authors of new theories from being smeared by encyclopedia editors. 216.16.55.163 (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)LogicMaster — 216.16.55.163 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * And that is why this page is up for deletion as witness by the hatemongering opinion of DMacks above. Wikipedia allows NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH and there is the fool DMacks judging original-research. Who uses Wikipedia to spread his worthless opinion. Tell me, is there a Template asking to get rid of a particular hatemongering editor of Wikipedia??-- who time and time again is totally unreasonable. People of the likes of DMacks just tears down all of Wikipedia. 216.16.55.163 (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)LogicMaster — 216.16.55.163 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * keep Some individual entries may have problems. Any entry that requires original research or is relying primarily on usenet posts is going to be problematic. However, most are not in that category but rather have good sourcing. Other entries can be removed or corrected as necessary. Note also that some of these entries have apparently deterioated from their best state. For example, there were multiple articles in reliable sources that discussed Archimedes Plutonium (including an article in Discover Magazine) that have been apparently excised. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref #3 is Discover, and is one of several RS discussing AP cited in his entry. I think that this one and maybe some others could also serve as refs for the article itself (that the general idea of "there are some well-known such people" has RS interest as well as each individual entry). DMacks (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh. For some reason I didn't see it. My eyes must skipped over it. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia can describe a Ongoing New Research Theory, but Wikipedia is not allowed to bias the theory, as it awaits the consensus of the science community. Show me a Science journal that describes the Atom Totality theory and describes a scientific proof or disproof--- there is none. Just because some hack newspaper or magazine who has no science editor calls it a bad name is not a permission tag for Wikipedia to then judge the Atom Totality Theory. Discover magazine was a comment in passing but not a scientific stance on the Atom Totality theory and so Wikipedia is not allowed to jump in the middle of a debate on Atom Totality theory and side one way or the other. Just as Darwin Evolution theory or Continental Drift theory could not and should not have been entered into an encyclopedia as "Eccentric theory". It is up to the science community and may take 50 years but Wikipedia should not be prejudging with biased editors. 216.16.56.26 (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)LogicMaster — 216.16.56.26 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Wikipedia cannot evaluate the validity of such theories. However, that's irrelevant to the matter since we have reliable sources describing the personalities in question, which is what this article is about. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Yes, the pure-Usenet sources are problematic, but then some of these people are notable for their activities on Usenet, so there's a balancing act here.  Either way, as has been pointed out, there are reliable sources establishing the notability of some of the entries, so the rest are merely a matter of firming up the sources or removing the entries.  It doesn't justify deleting the entire article.  Xihr  07:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.