Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Smallman12q/Nuclear Demolition

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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Smallman12q/Nuclear Demolition

Some original research in userspace. Seems to be a stale copy of an article that was deleted in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nuclear_demolition over six years ago. No improvement since then. Not valid for Peaceful nuclear explosion article. Someone translated parts of this hoax/original research and added it to Finnish Wikipedia, no doubt influenced by this page. (This is one reason, why keeping total garbage by lunatics in userspace is a bad idea. Someone finds it and "helps" by spreading it around, causing unnecessary cleaning up in multiple areas of Wikipedia project) See also Special:Contributions/DKhalezov, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special Control Service, deleted article about originator of this hoax (Admin-only link), explanation why WTC was not demolished by nuclear explosives, like the original writer of this nuclear demolition article claims and pictures in Commons (deletion discussion ongoing) jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 21:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason for deletion provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.122.149 (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:STALEDRAFT of explicitly retired user, per nom. Presence has also led to various problems here on WP (vandalism) and elsewhere (per nom). DMacks (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The theory is valid. Not Hoax, but fact. Dmitri 152 (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that User:Dmitri 152 has been blocked in Finnish Wikipedia for edit warring this content into articles. Above unsigned IP might be same user. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 17:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You have no right to block users that provide valid information with valid sources. This is form of censorship. The content is scientifically proof. The ban was assigned based on censorship. The above signature is NOT mine.--Dmitri 152 (talk) 05:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Crow about censorship all you like, nobody's listening. It's up to other sites to handle your behavior there. Here, we care about notability and reliable sources and consensus about what topics deserve articles, and as a privately owned website, you have no intrinsic right to "do whatever you like". Being "true" is neither necessary nor sufficient. DMacks (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:STALEDRAFT per nom. JMHamo (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2015 (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.