Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Eisemann-Schier


 * 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. There is consensus to keep the article, so deletion under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE doesn't apply. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 02:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Ruth Eisemann-Schier

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject requests deletion essentially per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, 2015031110028283. I have no opinion either way about the subject's notability. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * delete a WP:BLP1E situation as the subject is basically only known for the Mackie case. Mangoe (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - clear WP:GNG and WP:CRIME. Appearing on the FBI list is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:BLP1E does not apply here for nearly every point of the policy. Firstly, three notable instances: 1) First women to appear on the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives 2) wanted for the kidnapping of American heiress Barbara Jane Mackle 3) wrote a book, 83 Hours ‘Til Dawn, that was made into two films: The Longest Night and 83 Hours 'Til Dawn in 1990. Further, BLP1E only applies if "the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented" . This individual had a significant role, the event was notable enough to put them on the FBI Most Wanted list, books and films were made about it including a wide range of news coverage. As for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, I do not believe the rationale of "relatively unknown" applies since this individual appeared on the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives. This list is widely distributed and its named individuals arguably receive some of the most intense attention in their respective categories as wanted fugitives both by law enforcement and the general public. NOTE: I reviewed the OTRS ticket and while I sympathize with the intentions of the ticket, I do not think there is a valid rationale for deletion under the one proposed. Not until Wikipedia creates a more defined policy that would support the deletion of articles about individuals that meet our notability criteria. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, this individual authored a book that was published about the event . Therefore I believe they have relinquished their rights to privacy surrounding the event, even if it [is] a decision they regret now as well. Mkdw talk 20:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per cogent argument by Mkdw. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * keep per Mkdw A Softer Answer (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2015 (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.