RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Category:Woo-meisters

Category:Woo-meisters | Result: Keep

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete

 * 1) Meaningless -- what does "meister" mean, plus "woo" is kinda dumb. Redundant. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 16:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Meister" means master, typically with the connotation of being a purveyor. I believe it's a colloquial derivation of "maestro".  "Woo" is deeply ingrained in the skeptical nomenclature and isn't going away.  It's a term for broad collections of non-scientific claims with supernatural elements.  It's subtly different from pseudoscience promoters, who can support non-supernatural pseudosciences.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I know what meister means -- what I mean here is, is that "meister" is ill-defined. How much woo must one promote before one becomes a meister? Pseudoscience promoters is much more clear-cut -- either they promote pseudoscience, or they don't. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 18:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) It's true that the term, as we're using it, is just a a synonym for "pseudoscience promoters". That makes it a duplicate category. Spud (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call something like intelligent design 'woo', or someone like Kem Ham a "woo-meister". yet it certainly is pseudo-science. Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 12:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) No reason to remove - David Gerard (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Why have duplicate categories? FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 18:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) If only because fuzzy has declared a crusade against a well used word in the community. stupid reason to delete is stupid. -- Mie kal  04:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) It's not exactly the same as pseudoscience, and I like the word woo-meister. Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 12:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Why remove Bubba41102is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike an editor 12:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's duplicate. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 13:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) There may be some overlap, but it is not duplicate. Woo includes "spiritual" nonsense such as past lives, with no significant pseudoscience involvement. Ken Ham pushes pseudoscience, not woo. No need to conflate the two and stir them up into an amorphous mess. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)