Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Utts

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 keep. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Utts

Inadequately sourced biography on one of the two people who conducted a review of the remote viewing program, after which it was terminated. There were two of them, and it will come as no surprise whatsoever to those who watch the walled garden of articles surrounding RV that only one has a biography, the one who came out as saying that RV exists (which the scientific mainstream say it doesn't). So: this biography, with its tiny few sources, appears to me to exist solely to boost, as with several other deleted biographies of similar lack of sourcing, the remote viewing nonsense. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Noted parapsychologist. Yes, parapsychology is nonsensical pseudo-science, but that does not make her non-notable.Quarterwit (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is sourced and referenced. Dreamspy (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable per WP:BIO. Utts has been subject of multiple independent reliable sources; Google news results, e.g. The Washington Post, etc. Dreadstar † 20:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~28 refs is "inadequately sourced"?~~ — Rlevse • Talk • 20:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three, by my count, in that article. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS, wrong button, sorry...but I still vote keep due to other things mentioned here. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep award-winning prof at a major uni, with lots of press coverage. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've actually used her statistics textbook for a class, so there's an audience for this article beyond the Fortean community. Zagalejo^^^ 21:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I have no interest in the whole pseudoscience debate, however she clearly meets WP:BIO with reliable sources a-plenty. EJF (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even though RV is being POV-pushed, this still seems to clear the bar for me. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of refs available, do a google search. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I never heard of remote viewing before I saw this AfD nomination, but I heard of Jessica Utts before that. So if we deleted everything about remote viewing from her article, she'd still be notable. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notably enough for me. Paul August ☎ 02:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.