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 speedy redirect per WP:SNOWBALL -- The Anome (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial pseudosciences[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete The whole article is written to promote a point of view, and a fringe point of view at that. It is a personal essay and "original research", or at least original. There are no reliable sources supporting this view. There are plenty of "references" in the article, but they are links to web sites promoting fringe views. The topics described in the article are not regarded as "pseudoscience" by any reliable source. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As clear cut a case of POV as I've ever seen. Doesn't contain any information that isn't already covered better in existing articles. Really, no redeeming features. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 08:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The very premise of the article violates both WP:SYN and WP:OR right off the bat. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. the article is so far from being acceptable: it would basically need at minimum a book published under this title, listing all these ideas and the author's belief they are pseudoscience, and getting massive attention from any and all "sides". we are not there by any means.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can be speedied. Blatant and obviously intentional violation of our neutral point of view policy. Creator should be blocked for disruption. --Lambiam 12:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect creator to Conservapedia. While unintentionally funny, there is no way this article could ever comply with the NPOV policy. -Atmoz (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I took a quick look at the first ten references in the article, and I don't think a single one passes muster as a reliable source. Furthermore, the article is written in a way that seems to say, "I DARE you to tell me I'm wrong!" Even if this could be made an NPOV article with reliable sources, I doubt the creator of this page would allow it to happen. HubcapD (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pseudoscience. The nomination's claim that "The topics described in the article are not regarded as "pseudoscience" by any reliable source." is quite false. For example,Stephen Hawking states that cosmology has been considered a pseudoscience and the phrase Big Bang was first created to lampoon this theory by its notable critic, Fred Hoyle. Even now, necessary elements of that theory such as inflation and dark energy are ad hoc fudges. Other supposed sciences like psychoanalysis, economics and computer science have feet of clay and have been described as pseudosciences too. There is therefore good scope for an article of this kind but this article is not a good start upon it. And, of course, its editing would require endless wrangling of the sort that we already see at Pseudoscience. The matter therefore belongs there to keep the aggravation in one place. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2010 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.