This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reference works, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Reference works on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I should note that I could find only a negative review of the book. The only other comment I could find says "Whatever you do, don't waste your money on William Williams Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience", but I did not see any reason to include it. --Iantresman 23:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, maybe the book isn't notable enough to have its own article. Bubba73(talk), 23:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, though it is used a notable source in the article on Pseudoscience --Iantresman 23:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Here he says that it is nearly useless here. Bubba73(talk), 23:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it's notable because it doesn't appear to be very good. I think I'd be interested to find that out about the book. --Iantresman 08:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I second the nomination to remove this article
Wikipedia already has an excellent article on pseudoscience. Don't really need an article about a book that is basically a tabloid treatment of the subject, much less one that doesn't reference related articles.
And Big Foot should never be pictured without his pal Bat Boy 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)danshawen