Talk:Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Resource Exchange
WikiProject icon If you have access to this resource, or if you need to verify a citation from this reference, check out WikiProject Resource Exchange. WikiProject icon
WikiProject Reference works
WikiProject icon 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.

old talk[edit]

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"[1], 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)

notability again[edit]

Wikipedia:Notability (books) has guidelines for the notability of a book. I don't think this book meets any of them. Bubba73 (talk), 00:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I second the nomination to remove this article[edit]

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 (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)danshawen