Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurel Scheaf

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. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laurel_Scheaf

Laurel_Scheaf (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

not notable FreedomByDesign 04:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete does not meet notability guidelines. Capmango 04:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Why did someone go to such an extent to reference this?--ZayZayEM 05:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Sm1969 05:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, seems to be a vague attack page, probably by someone who wants to document est/Landmark as much as Scientology is. No real notability asserted. --Dhartung | Talk 06:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is not notalbe. Ebay3 06:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per notability guidelines. Too bad we can't also cascade deletion outward to some of the people and companies mentioned in the article. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment We should not, because Werner Erhard, est, and Landmark Education are all demonstrably notable. --Dhartung | Talk 23:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Also because there's a difference between WP:NOTE and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Charlene 02:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's not clear that any person or entity named in this article is notable. I think it'd be worthwhile considering them for deletion also. --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 23:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete If "Laurel Scheaf was president of est., when Werner Erhard incorporated Est and opened his first office" she might be notable. The major figures in this movement are Notable, like it or not. DGG 00:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: oh, I don't have any dislike of any of these figures or these movements, and I wasn't referring to Erhard or the Landmark Education articles, I just thought that the other "Course Designers" such as Brian Regnier (already tagged for notability by someone else) or even president Mick Leavitt might be candidates for deletion, and that most of the Red Links throughout these articles should be removed because articles on minor figures (such as attorneys of other minor figures) should not be created. I would think that all the {{fact}} tags applied to unlikely to be challenged or fabricated sentences in the articles are bigger evidence of IDONTLIKEIT than contesting the notability of other figures. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable as has been noted above. Alex Jackl 05:00, 24 June 2007 (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.