- 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. czar ⨹ 15:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Becky Smith (academic)
- Becky Smith (academic) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:ACADEMIC LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete yes, she has a PhD, well done, but parapsychology is an area of research of dubious scientific value. Unfortunately, it appears that the author has created other similar pages. Le petit fromage ( talk) 21:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete -I am not sure of any Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, subject would be able satisfy at this time. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 22:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. One marginal WP:RS from a local tabloid, but no real assertion of notability. Agricola44 ( talk) 16:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC).
- Delete. It's a WP:FRINGE subject, so we need extra care about making sure we have mainstream sources rather than ones that take a fringe point of view. In that respect, the quote from her in the one independent source we have (a local newspaper story) saying that she considers herself a skeptic is reassuring. And assuming that she does take that point of view, I don't see why the "dubious scientific value" of her research should be relevant — she appears to be more a historian of local folklore than a scientist. Nevertheless, we have no evidence of passing WP:PROF and a local newspaper story doesn't go very far towards passing WP:GNG. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. czar ⨹ 15:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Becky Smith (academic)
- Becky Smith (academic) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:ACADEMIC LuckyLouie ( talk) 19:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete yes, she has a PhD, well done, but parapsychology is an area of research of dubious scientific value. Unfortunately, it appears that the author has created other similar pages. Le petit fromage ( talk) 21:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete -I am not sure of any Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, subject would be able satisfy at this time. Anupmehra - Let's talk! 22:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. One marginal WP:RS from a local tabloid, but no real assertion of notability. Agricola44 ( talk) 16:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC).
- Delete. It's a WP:FRINGE subject, so we need extra care about making sure we have mainstream sources rather than ones that take a fringe point of view. In that respect, the quote from her in the one independent source we have (a local newspaper story) saying that she considers herself a skeptic is reassuring. And assuming that she does take that point of view, I don't see why the "dubious scientific value" of her research should be relevant — she appears to be more a historian of local folklore than a scientist. Nevertheless, we have no evidence of passing WP:PROF and a local newspaper story doesn't go very far towards passing WP:GNG. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- 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.