Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurel Scheaf

Delete does not meet notability guidelines. Capmango 04:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Why did someone go to such an extent to reference this?--ZayZayEM 05:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Sm1969 05:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete This is not notalbe. Ebay3 06:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Comment We should not, because Werner Erhard, est, and Landmark Education are all demonstrably notable. --Dhartung | Talk 23:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Navigation menu