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 Delete --JForget 02:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of quackery works[edit]

This is not a "list", it's just a jibe against one book (namedropping one other) which uses a forum masquerading as a book review to further the author's POV. I'd definitely be open to any improvements to this article, but in its current state, this article should be deleted and rewritten properly. Also, if it is rewritten, it should be done without use of the word "quackery" as an objective description, since this is a derogatory term we should not be using as such in an encyclopedia. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 16:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - a pathetic unreliably sourced POV coatrack. Always possibility for recreation as a well sourced verifiable list. EJF (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Qwfp (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we just Speedy this? Mangoe (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't think of a criterion it falls under. There's isn't one for "blatant coatracks", unfortunately. - Zeibura ^{( talk )} 23:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete MalwareSmarts (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. The lack of even a hint at secondary sources, as well as the edit summary it was created under (For the sake of non-fraudulent science), makes all of the above pretty obvious. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:44, 5 March 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.