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. Mr.Z-man 23:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Rauscher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:PROF. Awards listing are essentially resume padding, and there does not seem to be any claim to fame. No notice of her in the outside the fringe community within which she has been able to garner mention (e.g. Uri Geller's website mentions her as a "scientist" who supports him). Lack of mainstream independent, reliable sources which acknowledge her notability make her article unworthy of Wikipedia and without such sources, editors will be unable to write in a neutral fashion. See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypotheses of consciousness and spacetime. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I have looked for reliable, independent, third party sources that might establish notability and found nothing. Yilloslime (t) 18:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As for RSs, 19 publications in Scopus. One significant recent one, in Physical Review Letters , Volume 68, Issue 21, 1992, Pages 3152-3155 "Ionization plus excitation of helium by fast electron and proton impact" by F̈ulling,S., Bruch,R , Rauscher, E.A., Neill, P.A , Träbert, E., Heckmann, P.H., McGuire, J.H. cited by 17 papers, giving affiliation for her at Univ. Nevada, Reno. Fulling is the senior author, and a moderately important physicist. This is not sufficient for notability as a researcher. DGG (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. As far as I can see she's published a few psi/fringe papers and thats about it. Guyonthesubway (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons given by ScienceApologist and DGG. I suppose she might be notable as a fringe figure, rather than an academic, but not to the extent that anyone outside that has noticed, if the first ten pages of google are a guide. N p holmes (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all of the listed reasons. simply not notable Theserialcomma (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete in addition to lack of notability, the whole thing strikes me as a means to get traffic to her associated web sites. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DGG. --Crusio (talk) 19:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per N p holmes et al, fails WP:PROF, and her WP:FRINGE activities don't raise her to passing the WP:BIO standard of notability. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - she is notable neither in her role as a professional physicist, nor in her role as a fringe science proponent. --SJK (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DGG, not enough significance. We66er (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without her fellow crank no reason to have her here.--OMCV (talk) 14:04, 23 September 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.