Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celia Green


 * 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. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ Bruxton (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Celia Green

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No evidence she meets WP:PROF, the "Institute of Psychophysical Research" appears to be an independent organization and she does not seem widely cited in Scholar for her work. &#32;- car chasm (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Paranormal,  and United Kingdom.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per WP:BASIC - sustained coverage of her work (mostly available on ProQuest) as a writer has been added to the article. There is often not much depth, but there are more than trivial mentions over time that seem to support her notability. Beccaynr (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Beccaynr and WP:HEY. The sourcing added after the posting of this afd makes a solid case for borderline notability per WP:BASIC. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly a notable person in the history of parapsychology. As is usual with Wikipedia's bias in this topic area, additional sources that would help further substantiate her contributions to the field are not allowed.  5Q5 &#124;&#9993; 12:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep.  First because people have gone to the trouble of contributing, and their contributions should not be deleted unless there is a good reason for it. Secondly, I would mention that the BBC series Everyman considered her work notable enough to be covered in a TV documentary in 1985 (not actually referred to in the existing Wikipedia article, but available here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCi_fZUAp7M ). Unless someone has a burning desire to 'cancel' research into this particular area of dream research (which, incidentally, has nothing intrinsically 'para' about it), please let this article stay. Chrisgp (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Psychology. TJMSmith (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NAUTHOR. pburka (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Google Scholar shows a respectable rate of citation for her work on lucid dreaming and out of body experiences. Some of the citing works will of course be agreeing, some just reporting and others disagreeing. But disagreement is not grounds for deletion! It is grounds for keeping because the topic is one of lively debate. Foiled circuitous wanderer (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2023 (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.