Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of topics characterized as pseudoscience (3rd nomination)
For an editor who has expressed that they "don't know what this page was originally," the nominator has certainly been involved in its disputes, and has now started this '''without announcing it on the talk page!''' That's a serious procedural fault. I just discovered this by chance. Editorial disputes should not be solved by AfDs. Several other editors have made |POINTY attempts to sabotage the list by threatening AfDs and by listing absurdities, all in their attempts to ultimately protect their favorite pseudoscience from mention, even though notable V & RS have declared their pet ideas to be pseudoscientific. This list allows Wikipedia to do its mission, which is to use V & RS to document the real world. Why should promoters of pseudoscience be allowed to sabotage the list? The POINT violations need to stop and certain editors be topic banned from the subject
— User:BullRangifer, 05:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:POINT (Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point)