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 J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonpseudoscience[edit]

Nonpseudoscience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Unreferenced text that may be a creation of manipulative language with words cleverly inserted into article ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 21:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this article is to indicate that, on account of contamination of academic concerns by political interests promoted by plutocrats/capitalists, the "conventional" use (i.e., now in vogue) of the terms "pseudoscience" and "science" have been very nearly reversed from their natural applications : what are conventionally styled "sciences" are largely actually pseudosciences, and what are conventionally styled "pseudosciences" may be quite adequate sciences.

These observations are quite commonly admitted by university professors privately, but not stated (by them) publicly on account of risk of losing their academic position as professor on account of policies of the wealthy vested interests (represented by the capitalist-based state). That "research" in "sciences" is heavily manipulated by grossly distorting interests of opportunistic warmongering capitalist cartels is a national and international shame and disgrace.

Historically, this situation has prevailed from the outset of science and of the universities; and, though notorious and commented upon occasionally in liberal and radical publications, is as yet in dire need of being addressed more openly and in more detail. What is at stake is, perhaps, the survival of civilization and of humanity on this planet.0XQ (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as some pretty heavy-duty original research, a point that the author of this essay seems to concede: "These observations are quite commonly admitted by university professors privately, but not stated (by them) publicly on account of risk of losing their academic position" Kristen Eriksen (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Topic may well be notable, but this article is all unsourced original research. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete may be nonsense. Google searches come up with few hits, none of which seem tied to this rant/screed. Matt Deres (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not WP:V as conceded by author (supposed private discussions only) and on same count not WP:N and likely original research. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 04:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In addition to WP:OR, this article is highly soapy. -Atmoz (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NOR, WP:RELY, possibly WP:HOAX. Also fails (and is unlikely to ever meet) WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#OR and WP:NOT#SOAP. Cosmo0 (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2008 (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.