The result was keep. Stifle ( talk) 22:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This articles is a tentative to redefine the word "Debunker" to mean the just the narrow concept of a pseudo-science debunker. The leading paragraph and the "Etimology" section show how this actually belongs Wicktionary. The "Criticism" section is pure original research focusing on the "pseudo-science debunker" narrowing.
In the first phrase, a reference attributes the given definition of Debunker to dictionary.com, but when one really checks the source, one notice that the word "unscientific" was added to the wikipedia version, to prepare the reader for the upcoming narrowing of the concept. (Update: fixed in this edit)
The section "Well-known debunkers", if proved not to be too subjective, could be turned in an list-article. Damiens.rf 14:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Stifle ( talk) 22:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This articles is a tentative to redefine the word "Debunker" to mean the just the narrow concept of a pseudo-science debunker. The leading paragraph and the "Etimology" section show how this actually belongs Wicktionary. The "Criticism" section is pure original research focusing on the "pseudo-science debunker" narrowing.
In the first phrase, a reference attributes the given definition of Debunker to dictionary.com, but when one really checks the source, one notice that the word "unscientific" was added to the wikipedia version, to prepare the reader for the upcoming narrowing of the concept. (Update: fixed in this edit)
The section "Well-known debunkers", if proved not to be too subjective, could be turned in an list-article. Damiens.rf 14:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply