Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claimants Bill of Rights

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 merge to Ecclesiastical_Insurance. MBisanz ^talk 03:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claimants Bill of Rights[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable insurance company policy statement Nthep (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ecclesiastical_Insurance, or delete if you really feel like it. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ecclesiastical Insurance (rather than redirect). Though created by church of England and owned by a charity. the company is a general insurer dealing with a wide range of business. As it does not pay commissions to brokers, it is not widely recommended by insurance brokers. I would suggest that the new section resulting from the merge should be "Abuse claimants' bill of rights". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 07:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ecclesiastical Insurance and move the page history to a subpage Ecclesiastical Insurance/Claimants Bill of Rights rather than leaving this non-notable topic as a redirect in primary mainspace. – Fayenatic London 20:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Policy based rationale there is anything worth preserving? The whole thing reads like an WP:ADVERT. Mkdw ^talk 03:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ecclesiastical_Insurance I'm not advocating for merge because the sources for the article were the company website and then wordpress. There's very little salvageable material. It's basically a WP:HOWTO about filing a type of claim for an insurance company: "with the hope that it might inform how other churches and their insurance companies respond to abuse survivors" and "Anyone bringing a claim against the Church should understand how the Guiding Principles will apply to their claim, and how they should expect to be treated in the claims process". This all falls under WP:ADVERT and WP:NOT. The burden is to provide sources to indicate notability of content and I see none. Redirect at best. Mkdw ^talk 03:28, 10 August 2016 (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.