Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism and response in parapsychology
because it is a valid topic for an article. The parapsychology article should discuss the field of parapsychology itself with a summary of the criticism, but the criticism itself has a great deal of otability and source material of its own. It has its own history, its own key players, and so on. I strongly recommend a re-write, however, and a title change to ''Criticism of parapsychology''. The re-write should change it from a criticism and response format, and soon, for several reasons. One, it really does seem like it's leading the reader towards one intepretation. Two, it suffers from stylistic problems where it looks like a forum, blog, or a collection of notes, and doesn't read like a fluid article. All of these things aren't a reason for deletion however. They're reasons for a re-write. That seems to be the general consensus thus far, even among the delete votes. The calls for delete (from what I read) are all based on style and content, not topic. The article itself shouldn't be deleted
— User:Nealparr, 05:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:N (Wikipedia:Notability)