Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archimedes Plutonium (third 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 delete. As illustrated by many editors on this discussion, 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. Please note that I have ignored arguments on the lines of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archimedes Plutonium

Archimedes Plutonium (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (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 (this is disputed below; there were I think around ten citations to that source, which is why I say it was the major source). In other words, sophomoric sniggering. According to my alma mater's student newspaper, edited by someone 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 certainly 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 written 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)

• You can't "agree" that something which personally identifies someone by name and date fo birth does not come under BLP. It is covered by definition. You may not consider that it violates BLP, but it is undoubtedly covered. Guy (Help!) 07:38, 2 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)
  • I was going by the article, which had many citations to the college newspaper. Six pages in a book is not actually much on which to base a biography, of course, and it would depend on whether the tone was prurient or scholarly in respect of this individual. I am happy to believe that he is a well-known kook, and if we can document that without pretending it's a biography then fine. But this was a very large article, and most of the actual statements in it were ref tagged to usenet or The Dartmouth, which is poor practice in the case of a living subject. There are ways of fixing this, and an Uncle G rewrite is quite possibly one of the better ones. Your rewrites tend to be a vast improvement on the original. Guy (Help!) 07:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment

That book is The Dartmouth Murders by Eric Francis (St. Martin's True Crime Library, April 2005, ISBN 0312982313). You can use Amazon.com's "Search Inside" feature to read the relevant pages. The book is about the Dartmouth Murders. It has one short chapter about Archimedes Plutonium, with no other mentions. I think the following extracts from the its first, fourth and last paragraphs give an accurate impression:

The rumor mill surrounding the Zantop case was now in full swing ... Then, a week into February, the X-Files angle materialized in the form of a man named Archimedes Plutonium. ... The police saw it as an irritating but necessary detour, and turned their attention back to the [other] tips from the public."

I see only a few pages of light relief in a True Crime book. Does this count as a Reliable Source at BLP level? (That's a non-rhetorical question.) CWC 08:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• If you look at the prior AFD discussion, you'll find that I had already tackled this article. How do you think I can state with such authority what sources were used for what? I know what sources I used. ☺ And I know how much time I spent going over the book and hunting for many sources to ensure that the article wasn't relying solely upon a single source. For vast improvements, take a look at the state of the article at the time of the prior AFD nomination (2007-03-19T19:42:25), before I tackled it. Now that actually was sourced wholly to Usenet postings. Also take a look at the bottom of the 2007-03-15T04:55:48 version of the article, before editors started insisting upon sourced material only. You can see why I, for one, insisted that such things be sourced to something at least as good as a published book written by a journalist. (Again note that there's good reason to check e-mail complaints for actual substance. M. Plutonium has been blithely mixing up various different people in what he claims about the book's author, much to the annoyance of two of those people, one who directly asked Plutonium to stop, and another who came to Wikipedia to ensure that we weren't led astray. See Talk:Eric Francis.) Uncle G 10:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Still looks shaky to me, sorry. The Dartmouth case may well be a notable case, but that is a long way form establishing that this is a notable individual. Mike Corley has been trolling Usenet with his delusions that he is being watched through his TV for at least ten years, that does not merit a biography. We do not actually know anything about him as a person. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 3 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^talk 20:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete / keep deleted per nom. Merge to new article (Notable) Usenet personalities (a more encyclopedia version perhaps of material already touched on at Alt.usenet.kooks) (14:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)) 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)
    • Hi. I read the entire section on AP in the book via Google Books. Yes, they say more about him and the fact that he suggested a mutual suicide on Usenet (IIRC), etc., but the entire reason, IMO, that he is in that book is that 1) he is colorful and this was, after all a sensationalism book and 2) the police briefly turn a suspicious eye toward him. I like the idea floated on WP:DRV as I mention above in my amendment. Thanks for reading my comments. --Justanother 14:09, 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 ^Humbug! 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)
• Strong 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia (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. Wikipedia 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)
        • Yes, the web has many, many more users than Usenet. So what? AP is known to a much larger percentage of Usenet readers than Gene Ray is known to WWW users. Any regular reader of a fairly large number of Usenet groups has seen a post by AP or a reference to him. But you can read the web for decades before coming across a link to Gene Ray. Who has the greater fame? I am sure I cannot say, but I don't think it is at all obvious that it's Ray. Phiwum 01:05, 4 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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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^Talk 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 Wikipedia, 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)

• BTW, I created the Notable Usenet personalities article the other day for just this sort of thing, with AP specifically in mind. If he doesn't deserve an entire article, he at least deserves a short entry in a list of notables. — Loadmaster 23:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I am in two minds about this one. I have known about AP for far longer than I have known about Daniel Brandt and as a result he seems more notable to me. However I have not looked at the article for a long time but I can not do so now as it was deleted before this AfD was opened. I do not think that arguments for speedy deletion have been satisfactory argued, so I think this article should be restored so we can debate it properly. --Bduke 07:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • With a recently-deleted article which had existed for some time before deletion, it's always possible to look at the google cache. No need for a temporary undeletion. ElinorD (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The article appears OK and has some sources. My only concern is notability, on which I have no real opinion, but is properly debated here. The way, the truth, and the light 05:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I object to the process being followed here. The article was deleted, then an AfD was opened. Then the deletion was undone. Then the DRV was closed. What this means is that the AfD, created after the deletion, is being used as though the article exists, and we need to determine whether there is evidence to delete. That is not the case. There was a deletion, and, if there is any question about that, it should be debated at DRV. Why would AfD be a better place to review a deletion than a Deletion Review? And I also note that there has been virtually no argument by those opposing the deletion establishing that the subject of the article was notable or encyclopaedic. A man is supposed to be notable because he posted some nonsense on the internet. I humbly suggest that such a criterion of notability is overly generous. The article was a nasty piece of work that should have embarrassed anyone associated with Wikipedia. FNMF 10:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Return to mainspace and keep. The man has spent over a decade single-handedly ensuring that he would be noticed by millions. He might be the ultimate Usenet personality, mainly because he very deliberately put himself into the public eye. The article is sourced not just to a book that discusses him but also to his own writings which show that he has provided every scrap of information in the article and in the book of his own free will. I don't see that WP:BLP applies to him in the same way that it would a victim of child abuse. As regards his notability: virtually every longterm Usenet user knows about ol' PU - how many people is that? Ten million? --Charlene 10:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. We probably should cover {Archimedes Plutonium the USENET phenomenon} (and now we do — see Usenet personalities), but the True Crime book and USENET postings are not good enough sources for a biographical article about the real person behind that phenomenon. (I'd say that USENET postings by a mentally disturbed person are not valid sources about that person.) My guiding principles here are that
  (1) Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for cruelty, and
  (2) "With great power high Google rank comes great responsibility."
  CWC 10:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Nicely put; encyclopaedic content can be achieved without actively participating in the mockery, as you show here. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Could you clarify your claim that "USENET postings by a mentally disturbed person are not valid sources about that person"? How is your claim that AP is mentally disturbed relevant? Are books written by a mentally disturbed person valid sources for reporting on the self-proclaimed beliefs of that person? Is Gene Ray mentally disturbed? If so, should we remove references to his web pages? Are all or most cranks and pseudoscientists mentally disturbed? Alfred Lawson? Cyrus Teed?

I know that some people claim Usenet posts are not reliable because they can be forged. I understand this criticism (though it seems out of place in articles about noted Usenet posters). But you seem to be saying something else. Phiwum 12:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I was making the general point that some mental illnesses cause delusional episodes. Mental illness can also cause people to lie about themselves. I don't know whether any of the people listed have such an illness. Note also that some cranks are "mentally disturbed" but not mentally ill, much less insane. There's a continuum here. CWC 18:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, we have no source for a crank's beliefs other than his testimony. If crankish beliefs are enough to suggest that one is mentally disturbed and hence should not be believed, then we should remove every article about cranks. Phiwum 19:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the history is availiable for those who want to view the article and the DRV is CLOSED Viridae^Talk 13:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Keep deleted - having looked at the history at 18:59, 1 June 2007, apparently the last available version, I would suggest that this is a not-notable crank, who suffers from a persecution complex, no doubt because no one believes his widl ideas. If retained, it should be heavily trimmed. All the questions about when and wheter he had Internet access are non-encyclaedic. Peterkingiron 17:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The following sentences ripped from the above say it all: Archimedes Plutonium is a particularly notable Usenet denizen. 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. Greglocock 23:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Usenet postings by a person are perfectly valid sources about that person. Letters to the editor of well-known magazines by a person are valid sources about that person. A person's own web site is a valid source about that person. Articles in prominent college journals that have a history of good journalism are reliable sources. Usenet sources are adequate to establish notablity for an article about a usenet celebrity. If there is unverifiable information in the article, that information should be deleted, not the entire article. JulesH 08:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The way I see it, the subjects main claim to notability is posting in different forums where he advances his ideas and theories, but I see no evidence of him actually achieving any position or status which would make him notable. I have no clue as to why there are so many references to the person, but none of them make me feel that the person meets any of the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Being an intrepid defender of a personal theory supported by just about nobody else does not make you notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Question Would you vote to delete the Gene Ray page for the same reason? Or is there a significant difference between that crank and this? Phiwum 13:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Unrelated comment (outsider's opinion) I do strongly believe that Gene Ray is a non-notable mentally disturbed person, and the article on him should be deleted, definitely (even if out of mere decency). This discussion, however, is not about that. -- Ekjon Lok 23:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment One may consistently argue that both Gene Ray and Archimedes Plutonium should be deleted, for decency's sake. I'm not sure if I would argue against this position. Some editors, however, have argued in favor of keeping one as notable while deleting the other (partly because one has a website and the other is still a Usenet phenomenon, by and large). I was merely asking where Sjakkalle stands on this question. Phiwum 03:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Usenet personalities as per DRV discussion--Rayc 17:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep We have multiple reliable sources (indeed a large number of them). He easily meets WP:BIO. In fact some prior versions of this article used no referrences to usenet posts, so there really isn't any issue there. JoshuaZ 17:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to Notable Usenet personalities. I read through most of the discussion and, while I agree with those who commented "delete" that we should not have such a detailed separate article, I think this man needs mention: in Notable Usenet personalities. --Iamunknown 19:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Well-sourced article about notable Usenet personality. Spacepotato 00:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Notable Usenet personalities, focusing on matters of encyclopedic interest rather than pretending to be a complete biography, which it's not and never will be. FCYTravis 02:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Commenting is probably useless now, but I think we've gone a little too far with fighting BLPs (most of which I do otherwise support). I think it's clear we have reliable sources for at least good chunks of the article. I also think it's clear that a lot of the excuses for deletion is that people simply don't like using Usenet posts as sources. If someone is notable *for* his Usenet posts, the Usenet posts are usable as sources as self-published work by the person about himself (or more specifically, about his own beliefs).

I may also add that I was around on Usenet when this guy was a nuisance. He clearly wanted attention and posted specifically to put himself and his words in the spotlight. This is not a crime victim article or other one where the subject of the article has received undesired publicity; AP's publicity was desired by him, at least at one time.

And I'll also add that if you think the policy should be "we should not have separate articles about people. Make them articles about the incident, meme, etc.", then it should be written out as a policy and put somewhere where people can comment on it separately and try to reach consensus. Don't use your policies before they're hatched. (While it's true that policy can just put into words what we're already doing, that really isn't an excuse to create a *new* policy by constantly enforcing the proposed policy as an existing policy, especially against objections.) Ken Arromdee 07:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notable usenetter; well-sourced; had a verifiable impact on a notable topic. This article is pretty hard to follow though - it might need to be wikified and stripped down. CredoFromStart ^talk 15:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. But modify. Archimedes Plutonium and his use of Usenet posts represent a phenomenon that I think needs to be documented. And I think the article should be oriented not towards presenting a crank, almost for entertainment value, but towards this new phenomenon. For example, he has recently 'invented' the notion of publishing a book on Usenet by an accumulation of posts about the the book's subject. I wouldn't venture to write his article, but maybe what I'm saying might be useful in the discussion. Ken M Quirici 19:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As has been said above, he is a crank that has deliberately sought attention and is at least as well-known as Gene Ray.' The way, the truth, and the light 03:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• A rueful keep' as a significant part of Usenet, who was covered in offline media and who invented the term "search engine bombing". DS 15:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Wow. Invented the term "search engine bombing"? Who knew? Still, I suppose there is no evidence that the term was popularized by AP's invention? Phiwum 17:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notable, verifiable and sourced. --Oakshade 03:32, 8 June 2007 (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.