Deletion of Elizabeth Rauscher (2nd nomination)

Comment: sufficient |sources to establish notability even beyond WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR; and per the above keep comments by Cynwolfe, Jn466 and SlimVirgin
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Yes, it's fringy, but I think the nontrivial coverage of her in "How the Hippies Saved Physics" and in the Robesonian article about her eviction from the tobacco farm (a one-paragraph precis of her career) are together enough for 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Fails ; with quite a low citation count, no major award or associations as far as I can see, no named chair etc, and no evidence of notability outside academia. The article seems to suggest notability by association with Fritjof Capra etc., but . A case could be made for notability under  based on the books cited, although I am not in a position to check how substantial the discussion of Rauscher in those books is. -- Special:Contributions/202.124.75.136|202.124.75.136
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:GNG)

Comment: Rauscher's record in physics is remarkably average (e.g. h-index of 5 over a 50 year career). The comment above erroneously argues the founding of the Berkeley_Fundamental_Physics_Group#Fundamental_Physics_Group|Fundamental Physics Group (FPG) toward Rauscher's notability. FPG is not an article itself, but rather a redirect to a paragraph in the Jack Sarfatti article. Rauscher is mentioned in 1 sentence there, though there's no sourcing for her or her role in FPG. In fact, the Kaiser lecture, which is the main source in that paragraph, does not even mention Rauscher at all. It mainly focuses on Jack Sarfatti and Fred Alan Wolf. The argument that articles on other members of FPG exist is nothing more than . In fact, those people ''are'' all demonstrably notable, for example John Clauser (h-index 21, Wolf Prize in Physics), Nick Herbert (physicist)|Nick Herbert (author of ''Quantum reality : beyond the new physics'' with http://www.worldcat.org/title/quantum-reality-beyond-the-new-physics/oclc/11212633&referer=brief_results WorldCat holdings >1500), or Henry Stapp (95 peer-reviewed papers, most 1st authored h-index 16) and their articles are generally well-sourced. Rauscher's record of accomplishment is very obviously not in the league of these folks. Rather, she seems to be more associated lately with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nassim haramein|Nassim Haramein, whose WP article has been repeatedly deleted for lack of notability. As for the Nature (journal)|Nature source http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7360/full/476278a.html cited above, the sum total of content there is "They included Elizabeth Rauscher,...(list of others)" &ndash; this the archetypical trivial mention. Indeed, everything one might consider in assessing Rauscher indicates that she's a minor figure at best and not notable in the way WP guidelines require. Respectfully
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:WAX)

Comment: I agree with Slimvirgin that the subject does not pass rof or uthor. The only possibility is  under ringe, but I do not see that the sources are sufficient for that. The subject has not made the primary impact in that area as such figure as, for example, Velikovsky. One editor suggests that the standards of notability for females should be lower than for males. This has never been Wikipedia policy.  Another editor makes comparisons with Ancient Romans who have articles in Wikipedia. If the subject is being discussed in 2000 years time then I am sure that Wikipedians of that era will be only too pleased to approve an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:A||WP:GNG||WP:F)