Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landmark Education jargon

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. - Mailer Diablo 10:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Landmark Education jargon

Please see the following entry from the Landmark Education site.

Talk:Landmark_Education#Loaded_language

This is the last change before the recent additions by Smee. It is made by Jossi who is an admin: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Landmark_Education_jargon&oldid=93960772

This content was decided buy consensus on the Landmark Education page. None of the citations are particularly notable or say anything. The latest changes are an attempt by an editor to re-insert mateiral that was decided to be non-notable on the main page. Alex Jackl 21:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formatted, added to today's debate log. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The material is not coherent. The second of its two terms is not a definition, but a use of the term in a sentence.DGG 01:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an incoherent mess. It should be deleted. Triplejumper 03:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article seems quite garbled. Perhaps move to userspace and repost as an article after it's been made more coherent and encyclopedia-worthy? --AgentCDE 05:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Much of the article's content already exists in expanded form in Landmark Education. The subject matter doesn't warrant a whole separate article. =Axlq 05:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is overflow from the main Landmark Education article. Sm1969 06:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page should be deleted. The content is not suitable for an encyclodepia and is designed as an attack page.Simplyfabulous 13:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 20:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The material is backed up by (7) highly reputable citations, and is noteworthy as having been reported in such. Please see similar notable article that has remained on the project, Scientology terminology. Smee 06:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - This article seems odd for an encylopedia. Are there jargon pages for other organizations? Disney? Walmart? AT&T? If there are common terms that make a company unique, they might be included on a page about the company, but no a separate entry. Spacefarer 02:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing Admin -- Sm1969 (talk • contribs), Spacefarer (talk • contribs), Simplyfabulous (talk • contribs), and Triplejumper (talk • contribs) have not made significant contributions to the project, outside of the one article Landmark Education. Smee 06:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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.