- 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 keep. - Bobet 19:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More Scientologycruft, notability not established. This totally obscure and non-notable "company producing marketing material for the insurance industry" shouldn't get an article just because of its Scientology connections. Crabapplecove 20:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not really verifiable. The external link given and most of the information on Google about the supposed controversy come from unreliable bloggy sites. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 21:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article is well documented. The so called "bloggy sites" is a CD from the police investigation on Lisa's death. --Tilman 06:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. They're notable because of their connection to the Lisa McPherson murder, not because of their insurance marketing business. wikipediatrix 21:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. What wikipediatrix says --Mgormez 01:16, 5 August 2006 (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.