Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Schiller

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Schiller

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

Deletion was requested at BLPN by a user who claims to be the subject of the page. Meatsgains (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I had actually PRODed for exactly this but it was drive-by removed by a user, completely ignoring the comments I made.... Nothing actually convincing, even if there may be a few sources here and there. SwisterTwister talk 21:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on WP:LPI (specifically the "Appearances and performances" section), I do not feel that he qualifies under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE as he has published a book about his story which was made into a movie. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm ambivalent as to whether or not we should keep or delete this article. Just thought I'd bring it to AfD to get other users' feedback. Meatsgains (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs work however. I generally go with the 'subject has requested deletion' and vote delete, however here there are a couple of things that tip him over to keep. Firstly as well as being the victim of a particularly vicious crime, he also pled guilty to a large medicare fraud shortly after. Making him both victim and criminal in a short period which was well covered in the media. Secondly, he is the author of two books. Had he not capitalised on his experiences (which to be fair, he is entirely entitled to do) I would just say delete. But its a bit late to be doing that once your life has been turned into a motion picture. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article has brought out attacks against me based on ignorance and I would prefer it was deleted, so I could fade into obscurity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optiontrader11 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LPI, The article indeed needs work but that is not a reason for deletion a we follow the notability guidelines. also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Only in death's cogent statement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Quite aside from that I think the subject's passed a notability bar, and that not appreciating that the negative parts of your life (for which you sold a movie deal) are being publicized, I want rather more in the way of bonafides than a SPA's entirely unsubstantiated claims that he's the subject. Don't you? Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not sell the movie rights nor was I involved in any manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.107.41 (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless the assertions of notability in the article are in dispute, this person easily passes the bar. Sperril (talk) 21:10, 11 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.