Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woo-woo

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. Tone 22:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woo-woo[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prodded twice for being unexpandable from a dictionary definition (the term is already defined in Wiktionary). Beyond the definition, the article reads like a WP:COATRACK personal essay, covering ground already dealt with in much more depth by the scientific skepticism article. McGeddon (talk) 12:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has provided no support for the purported ubiquity of the phrase. Of all the references none speaks to what "woo" is, how it should be used, nor how it's use has spread. In fact, none of the references mentions "woo" at all except for the blog sciencebasedmedicine which uses it twice but is clearly a blog. No differentiation is made between the concept of "woo" and the concept of scientific skepticism. Padillah (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this isn't about the word "woo-woo" (which has other usages as well, such as an expression someone shouts after becoming extremely inebriated inside a gentleman's club). Essentially, this seems to be about things that the authors think are "woo woo". It's akin to writing an article about the word "bullshit" and then making a list of things you think merit that adjective. Conspiracy theories are woo-woo, supernatural stuff is woo-woo, new age things are woo-woo, etc. etc. My take on it is that articles that use the word "woo-woo" are woo-woo. Mandsford (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is woo-woo, basically. Lots of synthesis and little substance. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essay. How could anyone hope to write an article about "woo-woo" and not mention Etta Candy? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article doesn't use appropriate sources that deal with "woo-woo" directly, probably because it's impossible for this topic. And I'll hang my hat and WP:COAT on that. -Phoenixrod (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no comparative word to encompass these issues, and a simple definition does not do the subject justice. Of course the article reads like my opinion, I am one of the two people that added text to the page. The others only removed material(mostly sourced material), I would think that deletion--both of material and of the article-- would come after the editing process and not before a third person has worked on it. It is true that "...this seems to be about things that the authors think are 'woo woo'" if you consider the authors to be hundreds of thousands of scientists, philosophers, and critical thinkers.TheThomas (talk) 12:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given by McGeddon. GDallimore (Talk) 12:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete enough with the neologism woo-woo please Unomi (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2009 (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.