RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing

Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing | Result: Kept[edit]

~~Stub -- last updated in 2013, appears unlikely to grow. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 13:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)~~

Given that rationalwiki is the first google result that accurately the describes the journal as what it is, even a brief summary might spare some poeple from mistakenly believing it's serious science. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't at all see why being a short, unchanging article makes it a candidate for deletion. ħuman 14:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Missional, useful and informative. Being short is not a deletion reason. This is a bad nomination - David Gerard (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
All right, sounds fair. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 20:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
FCP has been expanding it, so I suppose this can be archived?--JorisEnter (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
How many other articles have these knuckleheads deleted solely because they're short? How many were deleted based on the "consensus" of two or three towering intellects and paragons of critical thinking like FCP and Assistant Professor Enter? Conscience (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Go away. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I repeat the first question. The second is way over your head, little boy. Conscience (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Have a look through this.--JorisEnter (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

It's marginally better than not having an article at all, some might argue, though it could really do with a sentence or two more. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- But who will put the bell on the cat? (Maybe me, I'll see if I can't do some "examples of fringe work" later today). ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)