Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of articles related to scientific skepticism


 * 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 delete as POV and largely reposted conent. WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

List of articles related to scientific skepticism

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

We've been over this one before. The first AfD resulted in a move to Project space and rename. The deletion review made it clear that it needed renamed as it was still too pejorative. It now resides there. There was a following MfD, which did not reach consensus on deleting it outright from project space. For some reason though, QuackGuru has found it necessary to not only recrate the same list in mainspace, but to append 368 references, apparently in an attempt to justify its inclusion in article space. Not only does this fly in the face of the consensus reached in both prior debates, it smacks of WP:POINT. The article should be Deleted. Kesh 01:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Speedy delete - just checked 13 references and not one mentioned scientific skepticism. Pretty obvious this is WP:OR. The lead is ambiguous and borderline non-sense as anything could be included. Looks like just another list to put your favorite enemy on.See WP list criteria:
 * Speedy delete, CSD G4. So tagged. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 01:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think this meets CSD G4, but failing a speedy deletion, I'd naturally go for Delete. The references generally have nothing to do with establishing each list item's inclusion in the article; if what Kesh says is true, they were just blindly added from each item's corresponding article. Inclusion criteria are non-existent, and that's probably because they're impossible to give. Found on this list are a myriad of odd items like "academic dishonesty" and "Troll (Internet)," as well as multiple items more easily given on other, already-existing lists. This is a paradigm case of an indiscriminate collection of information. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 03:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, WP:CSD. Levine2112 02:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as the article has significantly changed and the title is now non-pejorative. "Scientific skepticism" is a phrase commonly used in magazines and other places where controversial topics such as those listed on this article are discussed. This is actually one of the most useful lists I've seen here. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 02:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Strong Delete. I changed my opinion because of the content of the references. Any article could cite a million (or 368) references that really have nothing to do with the article. This kind of deception is not acceptable. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk  to Nihon joe 04:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The only actual difference is the extreme number of references appended to the list. The list itself is identical and there is still no serious inclusion criteria given. In fact, the references are simply copied & pasted from the articles themselves. It appears that QuackGuru just went through and copied every reference from every article listed, and pasted them into the list. This does not appear to be an actual attempt to satisfy their reasoning for adding the items to the list, but an attempt to get around WP:V by making an WP:POINT. -- Kesh 02:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if he really did just copy the text from those articles, it may be a copyvio, in which case all of the added text would need to be deleted as copyvio, which would remove the sources, and the article would be the same. If that's the case, then I'd have to reconsider. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 03:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is why I brought up WP:POINT. The references given have nothing to do with whether or not the articles in question are related to scientific skepticism, they're just thrown in there from the articles themselves. Dealing with them one-by-one would be a nightmare, and it seems to me that's the point of why it was done that way. -- Kesh 03:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I would like to see tighter requirements, and some removed, such as Spam (electronic); Penicillin; Pharmaceuticals; Psychiatry. Is spam a pseudoscience? Are medicines fake? There is no context to these entries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. Beware of those cases in which the definitions themselves are disputed. Many lists on Wikipedia have been created without any membership criteria, and editors are left to guess about what or whom should be included only from the name of the list. Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit."

There is no room for this in article space. It is a great reference on project space where it came from. --Dematt 03:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Unprecendented Change is the theme. The List of articles related to quackery was a stand alone list without any references or organization. It was a long and unfocused list. Now, a new and different "shorter and more focused list" with verifiable references meets every aspect of Wikipedia guidelines. The List of articles related to scientific skepticism as gone through a "massive remodeling". Everything has been categorized, organized, and well written. It was NOT a re-creation of the list of article related to quackery that was a long list with any sentences or references. This was an amended list that has gone through a massive change. I invite you to look at the history for the proof. Thanks. New and different articles are allowed to be created. This new list had references and sentences and categories. Obviuosly is it very different from a long long that had everthing mixed up togther. Additionally, the closing admin asserted if everything was referenced it could be back on mainspace again too. Not only is it referenced, it has sentences and categories that were not there before. And the intro paragraph has been updated with a lot more detail for inclusion and focus. This is an easy keep when you look at the history when it was in mainspace under the list of article related to quackery compared to a different, >>> The list of articles related to scientific skepticism. <<< A massive improvement is a reason for mainspace. This newbie article deserves a chance for many Wikipedians to contribute (over the years) and improve further. It has distinct parallels to the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts which has had its own beginning. If anyone has a concern about the list it should be brought up on the talk page. Cheers to Wiki. --QuackGuru 03:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As stated above, this is clearly OR, with no solid criteria for what articles to include or exclude. Furthermore, a large number of the articles listed seem to have nothing to do with 'scientific scepticism'. Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  03:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If the list is too broad it can be discussed and condensed per discussion on the talk page. Focusing the list can be done. Experienced contributors can easily discuss reason for inclusion and improve the list. That would be easy. Thanks. QuackGuru 03:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I totally agree with the comments about the list is still a little long. I invite anyone to trim and clean up the list. A condensed list is a great idea. Thanks. --QuackGuru 04:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * STRONG DELETE  The term 'skepticism' seems to have been hijacked and is being used here as a euphamism for anything Quru hates and has a bug up his beehind about. Can we now start listing MDs who fail boards yet hold themselves up as expert witnesses?  Or what about MDs who stalk women or who roam the internet posting under a fictitious woman's name? Does anything go on this so-called list? Besides it seems to link-spamming, link-farm and not to mention, obviouslyWP:OR. Thanks  Steth 04:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * delete. The material in project space is what should be returned to article space. It is a perfectly straight-forward NPOV list of appropriate WP articles and so on. The page now in article space has added a list of references on each of the specific topics, & a paragraph of added description or some of them.. This is first of all redundant, because the articles being referred to have the references and the discussions. Selecting one or two key references for this list out of the usually great many in the articles will always be controversial, as will be writing a succinct summary. The pages for the specific articles are the ones for these controversies, or everything will be continually being argued at both places.  The  final section on phraseology is the worst, because this gives examples, which makes a third place for the discussions.  However, the introductory paragraphs of this article seem useful; but  still they are found elsewhere. Just maintaining an agreed upon list will be difficult enough.
 * the best its proponents can say for it is that the new article "ought to be allowed to compete"--compete for what--maximum continual confusion?

Examine for example the annotation for UFOs, which attempts to synthesize the evidence. Such attempts will prove to take matters which have been approximately reduced to NPOV elsewhere and reargue them. Very few of them are simple factual descriptions or definitions of the subject matter, but even those are often controverted. Some of the opposition above highlights this--it is opposition to particular parts. This is a direction that will prove disrptive. DGG 04:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete, Speedy Delete. This looks like an SPA's private, leftover spam & link POV farm that was previously addressed in Dec-January, dumped, moved, renamed into other name in project space. Now it is resurrected with dupicative material that has been long removed, back into Article space!  This time let's call its lack of deletion an adminstrative oversight. Next time let's use an RfC about abuse, good faith and commmunity distraction.  Also considering the amount of duplicated material and (spam)links, besides SOAPboxing WP itself, one might wonder about manipulation of the Internet search engines' scoring systems also to promote their favorite site(s).--I&#39;clast 05:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have nuked the list of articles to a newbie stub based on comments here to start over and turn over a new leaf. Thanks, --QuackGuru 05:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete see above. /Blaxthos 06:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete recreation of vaguely titled list. "Related to" means nothing. Doczilla 06:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Didn't we already go through this? This is clearly an article created to push one POV - that of the pseudoskeptic. Delete and salt the earth... again... and use better salt this time. TheDoctorIsIn 07:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - repost. So tagged. MER-C 08:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete repost and disruptive POV pushing.--Docg 10:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.