Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMC Publishing (2nd nomination)

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.  Glen  07:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify my decision. The arguments for keep centered around its notability due to Lisa Macpherson's employment there, the owner being a Scientologist involved in her death and links pertaining to such. Delete argument was based on non-notability. Whilst I agree with the keepers, in that if the employer was linked to her death then perhaps notability would be shown, I fail to see any link at all made in the article. The article provided two sources [1] and [2]. One is about the business "flourishing", the other about the Macpherson case - and it merely states she was employed there. You are welcome to recreate the article when you can demonstrate its notability. I will be happy to provide a copy of the deleted article to anyone for this reason. Glen

[edit] AMC Publishing

AMC Publishing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Strong Delete: I would like to renominate this one. I was going to put it up for prod before I checked the history as it really is nothing but cruft (Scientology critic cruft, if you will). It has little notability as it is merely Lisa's ex-employer. How does that make it notable?? Other than that it is a Scientologist-owned business. Again, not notable. The point that it is well-documented mentioned in the first nomination is irrelevant to its lack of notability. The sole reason given above in the first nomination is it is notable because of connection to Lisa. Then I guess every one of her Scientologist friends would be notable too? How about her Scientologist hairdresser? Yes reductio ad absurdum but it makes my point. --Justanother 08:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

See also: first nomination

• This was originally found in the first nomination. Procedural listing. MER-C 08:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I can see how some people can argue that this article is notable in connection with the death case, but I'm leaning towards delete here because the company itself is not notable, outside of the death. i.e. I can see what the nom is saying, so delete per nom. (If the company has a bigger connection to Lisa other than simply being her employer, then I'll probably change my recommendation.) Copysan 09:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This wasn't just her employer, it was her scientologist employer, of which the head was involved in her death. --Tilman 10:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I looked at Bennetta Slaughter and saw that she is head of Applied Scholastics (really?? apparently so, I didn't know that so more to her notability but not to AMC's) and otherwise prominent so to the degree that prominent critics and public (i.e. non-staff) Scientologists are notable then she is notable. But the company she was a part owner in is not. --Justanother 15:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete: Listing the employer of everyone that dies in a hospital would be ludicrous and that seems to be the only thing causing this article to exist - that one of its empoyees died. That the owners of a business are Scientologists really has no bearing on anything imo. The test I use as I go through mentally and substitute the word Baptist (or jew(ish) or muslim) everywhere I see the word scientologist and if when I am finished I am left with a mental 'so what?' and a shrug, then the article/newsitem/whatever is judged by me to be a smear job, useful and interesting only to those seeking to malign Scientology (or whatever other subject). ---Slightlyright 15:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Remove the second and third paragraphs and there's really not a lot left; certainly nothing to assert any notabilty for this company. Emeraude 16:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Highfructosecornsyrup 16:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - What makes it very notable is the connection to the Lisa McPherson case (see St. Petersburg Times ref in article). --Oakshade 16:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments: You mean this ref?

    McPherson moved to Clearwater from Dallas in 1994 with her employer, AMC Publishing, a marketing firm operated and staffed largely by Scientologists. Like others at AMC, she wanted to be close to Scientology's spiritual headquarters in downtown.[sic]

    I really do not see how that makes AMC relevant to the Lisa case in any meaningful notable manner (it is back-story, at best) nor how that makes this article anything more than cruft. --Justanother 17:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The connection is Benetta Slaughter. Head of AMC and self-proclaimed "best friend" of Lisa. --Tilman 17:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
      • So AMC has some sort of "tertiary notability"? I think that is a stretch. --Justanother 17:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as the company itself is non-notable. TSO1D 19:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No matter the level of consanguinity/affinity, it's basically a nn business. SkierRMH,07:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Notable because of their connection to the Lisa McPherson murder, not because of the insurance marketing business. I suspect a cult's agenda is at work to remove this article. Orsini 10:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I take my orders directly from L. Ron Hubbard's disembodied head. --Justanother 12:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    • "That's going to be my answer for everything from now on: "I suspect a cult's agenda is at work." Highfructosecornsyrup 14:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Let's be clear, the article is not about a person, but a company. The company is not notable and I doubt anyone in 10 years is going to remember it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan.ca (talk • contribs) 22:45, December 4, 2006
• Weak Keep. Minor corporation, but I can imagine the article being consulted once a year or so by someone researching scientology. If we were paper this would be a waste of trees, but we're not paper. WMMartin 17:06, 8 December 2006 (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.