Deletion of Pet psychic

Comment: Just because there's a lot of words in the reference section, doesn't mean its notable. All I see are sources covering broader pseudo-scientific claims (which fail to offer the required "significant coverage"), and a lot of non neutral primary sources. Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: Here are a few referenceshttp://animal.discovery.com/videos/pet-trends-with-maggie-gallant-maggie-meets-a-pet-psychic.html, http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-11/pet-psychic.html, http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20137471,00.html, and http://skepdic.com/animalquackers.html (kudos to roux). Sheesh, people, the article looks more like a farce with all those {{cn}}. Now, I'm not sure what part of "notability" from , you guys are missing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per  - at least as of now, it is a notable, |well-referenced article.  Certainly '''not''' a neologism; the term has been around for decades
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY||WP:RS)