Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of a page entitled List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories.

Further comments should be made on the talk page rather than here as this page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to keep the page.

Sole reason of page is propagation of POV. Maroux 09:40, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)
 * Borderline keep. Interesting subject matter, but POV needs a good industrial-strength cleaning by a set of fresh eyes. (not mine) Davodd 10:59, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pseudoscience has to be studied as well. Mikkalai 11:34, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Fuel for disputes, but the topic is good. Should be NPOV if the criterion for inclusion is that the theory is not accepted by the scientific establishment (regardless of whether you think the scientific establishment is right or wrong). Keep. Fredrik 12:56, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * It's been around since mid-2003 and has been edited considerably in that time. Suddenly deleting it now would surely be grossly inappropriate. It's a useful list, though the intro needs severe NPOVing. I might suggest some links to and material from Anomalous phenomenon. - David Gerard 13:03, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inherently POV. Anthony DiPierro 13:26, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Fredrik's criterion for inclusion. Average Earthman 16:15, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to be trying to take a balanced view on an inherently controversial subject. MK 16:52, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I remember when this page had the word "fringe" in its title ;-) &mdash; Timwi 16:55, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Fredrik. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:38, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, reluctantly. Few who agree with one of these theories would acknowledge that they are speculative or pseudoscience. These theories probably ought to be classified as merely alternative views regarding whatever subject they happen to pertain to, not lumped together derisively. Everyking 17:39, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to List of disputed theories. That's much less POV.  moink 18:07, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree about renaming. Fredrik 19:20, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep if renamed to List of disputed theories. - Texture 18:22, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * While I agree with DiPierro about POV, I think that revising the first para and changing the title will go far to neutralizing it. Denni 22:13, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)
 * Keep. Always likely to be a battleground, but a valid topic. Historical difficulties in POVing aren't a reason for deletion, so long as it is possible to write NPOV material on the topic, and it is as has been demonstrated. (And probably those who waste everyone's time POVing this article would just be POVing some other article otherwise.) Andrewa 23:12, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename List of theories disputed by modern science. mydogategodshat 00:44, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * That's better than what I suggested. But I don't like "modern."  How about List of theories disputed by mainstream science?  moink 00:53, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)