Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Trevor Sinclair (talk | contribs) at 23:24, 30 July 2009 (The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

FailsWP:N and WP:BK, Googling shows no sources available to establish notability. Artw (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another bad faith POV-based edit: this editor came over from Ian Stevenson where he is trying first to claim the book is not a reliable source and then that it didn't say what it clearly said, all so he could remove the POV the expert opinion he disagrees with from the article in question. If Artw is arguing against people showing up and voting without following procedures, it's interesting to not that the only people actually doing so are people *he* brought over. 18:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Addendum: the topic may meet the "multiple, non-trivial published works" criteria of WP:BK, but does not, as yet, meet the "at least some of these works serving a general audience" caveat to that criteria. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm thoroughly persuaded by Cardamon and GRuban's arguments. The publicly unavailable reviews are legitimate[5]. The CHOICE review is concise (~150 words) but acceptable. It evaluates the book as "Optional. High school, college, and public libraries" and lists "weak article bibliographies...and inconsistency in writing quality and depth of subject coverage" as its most notable shortcomings. The encyclopedia is cited by other academic publications like Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Neuroscience or General philosophy of science [6][7]; and a number of educational institutions seem to regard it as a valid academic reference[8][9][10]Rankiri (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have been trying to make up my mind, and Cardamon, GRuban, and particularly Rankiri have convinced me. I had already noted that there are quite a few citations to various articles in the book in other academic publications but had not been clear about the implications of that. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The further references found for the article have convinced me it's clearly notable. Nevard (talk) 06:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reviews have now been found and added, it meeting all requirements a book has to in order to have its own wikipedia article. Dream Focus 13:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. I'm seeing the same references we had 2 days ago. All of which fail to give any indication of what the actual text of the reference is and it's degree of significance. Some links of quotes would do a lot here. From the look of the current Scitech Book News it consists of simple listings for books, and so tyhat one in particular would not count towards WP:N. Artw (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]