Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marshall Sylver


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Marshall Sylver

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I have severe doubts that a proper balance can ever be struck here between positive and negative information, so it's probably simpler to just delete it outright -- especially since Sylver seems to show up regularly under different accounts to try to add uncited peacock material and remove unfavorable material. I'm also not sure that the sourcing we have establishes true notability, as opposed to temporary notoriety. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability seems pretty well-established, if not necessarily as a hypnotist, then as a fairly prominent huckster. The fact that the subject of the article keeps showing up to try to scrub evidence of his misdoings seems to me an argument for keeping the article, not deleting it, which would be letting him win. There doesn't seem to be any controversy other than Marshall Sylver versus The Rest Of The World here. --  Theodolite  ➹  15:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. For many of the reasons Theodolite stated.  Though a low-level fraudster, Sylver is notable enough.  Also, as Sylver has flooded the web with propaganda in an attempt to make sure his Wikipedia page isn't returned too high on a Google search, the article page might actually be a public service. --LongLiveReagan (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC) — LongLiveReagan (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep I think he passes notability, even if he is a bit weak there. The fact that there can be balance concerns further supports notability, and should not be used as a criteria to support deletion. Monty 845 04:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.