Deletion of Fukushima Paradox

Comment: I'm not sure where the feathers come in (in my garden, it usually means a sparrowhawk has visited, and she's had another pigeon), but I'm afraid we can't publish your theory UNTIL you produce sources that fit in with . I would remind everyone that this is not a public utility or free webspace - it's an encyclopaedia. Magazines like New Scientist, Nature and Scientific American publish new things. We record things that already have been discussed and noted or published reliably. Stuxnet to me is a worm, and I can't see how the writers of it could be of any relevance even in the unlikely event of us finding out who they were. I'm not sure (again...) of what you mean by "an authority to modify it for inclusion". Here, the 'authorities' are no more able than any other editor to modify articles and our 'authority' is in areas of administration not content. If you mean an authority on the subject of nuclear physics, if their comments are verifiably published in a reliable place (not a blog), they might help. If the article goes down, it can be re-done at a later date - provided the sources are present. Bringing the theory to the attention of the world is your job, and we are unable to help with that. As original research, it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)