I think that if a field of inquiry, or a theory if you will, is to be called "pseudoscience," then it has to be explained by what criteria it is distinct from "real" science or protoscience. And then the rebuttal from those who believe it is real science must be presented as well.
The argument for creationism (which I don't buy) is that the fossil record and other physical evidence leaves unanswered questions in the "theory" of evolution. Hence, they argue, you can't reject creationism as a valid form of scientific inquiry. The fallacy is that if one explanation doesn't explain everything, then all other explanations are equally valid.
I think it is important to have an article about pseudoscience, but it would be more interesting and readable, and less contentious, if we omitted examples altogether. Tom Cruise recently characterized psychiatry as a "pseudoscience" and would undoubtedly list it as an example here. There'd be a big argument, and the article wouldn't improve much.