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 keep. Stifle (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debunker[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This articles is a tentative to redefine the word "Debunker" to mean the just the narrow concept of a pseudo-science debunker. The leading paragraph and the "Etimology" section show how this actually belongs Wicktionary. The "Criticism" section is pure original research focusing on the "pseudo-science debunker" narrowing.

In the first phrase, a reference attributes the given definition of Debunker to dictionary.com, but when one really checks the source, one notice that the word "unscientific" was added to the wikipedia version, to prepare the reader for the upcoming narrowing of the concept. (Update: fixed in this edit)

The section "Well-known debunkers", if proved not to be too subjective, could be turned in an list-article. Damiens.rf 14:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable, encyclopaedic. Article title might be a bit off, but that's not a matter for AfD. Certainly not a dictionary definition. WilyD 15:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to List of debunkers keeping a short explanation of what "debunking" is (it's also useful as an inclusion criteria) Keep The article has a few problems, like a too loose definition of the term, but they can be solved by editing. Next time, please consider raising the issue at the talk page, or trying to fix it yourself. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I honestly think, at this moment, that we can't make an article about this topic that would really be more than a dictionary definition. TThe current article actually deviates from the correct definition to try to talk about something else, not without a good deal of original research. But I wouldn't have a problem in being surprised. I see you're already doing a good work there. Please go on. --Damiens.rf 15:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This response matches what I said about your complaint being perhaps valid about the title, but that the solution then being a move, rather than a deletion. Where, I dunno. Debunker seems to be an overloaded term. WilyD 16:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only move I can think about would be to "List of pseudo-science debunkers", and leave no much more than the list-section in the article. --Damiens.rf 16:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would support a move as suggested, with the caveat that most of the brief text of the article could usefully remain as defining the scope of the list. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, the text should be tweaked to explain what pseudo-science debunking is about, instead of trying to convince the reader that "debunk" basically means "pseudo-science debunking". --Damiens.rf 16:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • That looks like a sensible solution to me that solves the problems with the article. P.D.: However, I don't see the "pseudo-science" part correct unless you remove the non-pseudoscience debunkers, specifically Harry Houdini, Philip J. Klass, Snopes and Robert B. Stein --Enric Naval (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It would seem to me there's at least nominally enough for both Pseudo-science debunking and List of pseudo-science debunkers which probably should stick at Pseudo-science debunking until article size merits a split then. Certainly there's enormous potential for expansion here. WilyD 20:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, that would be ok too. But we should take an extra care with independent sources and undue weight on Pseudo-science debunking, because there appears to be a lot of "activism" and self-promotion in this area. But nothing Wikipedia can't deal with. --Damiens.rf 21:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's probably not as bad as bands, but moreso than usual, I guess. Not qualitatively differnt, I think. WilyD 21:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- not being a dictionary doesn't preclude this entry, if well sourced and properly documented. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to be ok, sourced, covers the topic are much more than a wp:dicdef, provides a list of notable examples. Not sure how a move is necessary. Maybe adding a new article, List of.. if the list gets long enough. "Dubunking" itself seems to be a notable enough activity. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 16:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Wiktionary. As a dictionary definition, it'll be incredibly hard for this not to become more than pretentious amounts of trivia pretending to be an article. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, the technical term is not merge, but transwiki. ;) --Damiens.rf 18:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahh, that's the one, I knew it was around somewhere in my head, but apparently I'm slow today. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• transwiki Definition portion to wiktionary and Move list of debunkers to new purpose made article, possibly ceat an article detailing the process of debunking if none exists. If Snipe hunt can be an article so can debunker --Brendan White (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:OTHERCRAP --Damiens.rf 18:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and move to a list Fuckin thing sucks- sincerely, bill O'Reilly --Δζ (talk) 10:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Debunkers and debunking are notable topics. Even just a history of the expression would be worth a WP article. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If there are content problems, work them out at Talk:Debunker, the notability of the concept is established. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 12 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.