Talk:Jessica Utts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

from VfD:

Another apparently lost/orphaned VfD nom, as the tag was added November 15, but it doesn't seem to have ever been placed on the main VfD page--also not on "old" (and is an has no links from VfD-related pages). Procedural/abstain--mostly seems to be an average professor, but a textbook on amazon (not kept in stock) might be enuf to push her over the line of notability (it would be nice if the article mentioned it and her work on statistics, instead of focusing on her parapsychology work, which doesn't seem to be her main activity). Niteowlneils 18:58, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

{from before VfD main page listing}} Looks like vanity. Exploding Boy 20:27, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

No. This page was created because there has been an unfilled reference to Jessica Utts in the parapsychology page for quite some time. Utts is an active researcher in parapsychology, so this page definitely has its purpose. 12.223.132.150 01:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There was also a link to here under remote viewing. I added more information. I think expansion is the way to go on this article, not deletion. Cortonin 05:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The "unfilled reference" refered to by the anonymous user above hasn't been unfilled for "quite some time", unless "10 days" is quite some time. The entry under remote viewing is also new. In addition, the scientific reputation of this person is in doubt: please see the Straight Dope [article]. According to that article, Jessica Utts tried to say that a study (which she participated in... hmm, objective) that had a 15% success rate was enough to continue federal funding for. I vote for deletion. --NightMonkey 23:22, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

First, the specific paper being discussed has specific calculations about the likelihood of the result occuring by chance. Regardless of this fact, however, it's not sensible to delete based on disagreement with the conclusions of her publications. The simple fact that she was and is involved with these topics is reason to keep. Cortonin 00:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think there may be some sockpuppeting going on here, so I'm not going to count anonymous IP votes. I've put the current vote tally below. Please update it as new registered user votes come in, as per Wikipedia VfD policy. --NightMonkey 00:19, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Mikkalai 22:33, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Delete non notable vanity - Drstuey 01:34, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Comment: The article committs one of the great logical fallacies by employing a post hoc ergo propter hoc ("After the report funding was stopped"), and that suggests POV article construction. No vote at present, but I'm suspicious. Geogre 01:36, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep: DCEdwards1966 04:50, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
Keep: (I also commented at top of page, please only count once.) Cortonin 07:02, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Keep, but refactor - Reads like a resume cover letter/vanity page. Not against a page existing per-se, but should be focused on notable and encyclopedic weight and value. --NightMonkey 07:06, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. NightMonkey makes a good case for editing the page, not deleting it. Dr Zen 23:56, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)