Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pseudoscientists

As noble the intent may be, this list is totally misguided. It is fallacy to assume, that the existence of Pseudoscience imply the existence of "Pseudoscientists". Those people notably involved in Pseudoscience regarding one field of "research" are often bona fide scientists in other fields, having mainstream academic credibility. Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko is perfectly reasonable mathematican, whereas his New Chronology is perfectly unreasonable pseudoscientific nonsense in the field of history. --Pjacobi 07:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -Medtopic 07:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Apart from the reasons given in the nomination, the term is dubious under the WP:NPOV policy, especially when the entries are unreferenced. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, didn't we delete something very similar in the past two months? Gazpacho 07:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:::: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_28#Category:Pseudoscientists --Pjacobi 08:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

:::::That was overturned though by a DRV and a second CFD Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_12#Category:Pseudoscientists was no consenus. Its still there. --Edgelord 19:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::: Heavens! --Pjacobi 14:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete listcruft ST47 11:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, yet another listcruft, POV. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 14:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and delete the category too! Completely, hopelessly, unfixably POV. wikipediatrix 20:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, listcruft. The category deserves the same. Pavel Vozenilek 19:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This list was created as an attempt to forestall the re-creation of the Pseudoscientists category. The strongest argument against the category was that it didn't allow for annotation of entries, and so a list was suggested as an alternative. Before you delete this list, I would suggest trying to re-delete the category and see for yourself why this is quite possibly the best compromise available. Also, FYI, I was the person who nominated the category for deletion in the first place. --Wclark 07:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As much as I hate the word "cruft" as a dismissive and inarticulate replacement for a good reason, this is exactly what this article is. Mallanox 12:06, 28 August 2006 (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.