Talk:Marcus Schrenker

Speedy Deletion

So let's talk about why this article should be deleted. I personally think this guy might become the story of the year: fakes a distress call, leaps from his own plane (which crashes on land), then gets police to help him get to his getaway vehicle and rides off into the sunset, evading securities fraud charges. That's pretty incredible, and it's likely he could become noteworthy. At the very least, he's popular news today, and plenty of people are going to come looking for a Wikipedia article on the guy. john factorial (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No need for this page- not important enough. Just because he is in his '15 minutes of fame' doesn't warrant a Wikipedia entry. Keep this on, and only on, Wikinews. Remember: you don't find it in a dictionary? You don't need it on Wikipedia.Dryamaka (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)"

"You don't find it in a dictionary? You don't need it on Wikipedia," might be the silliest thing I've read all day. That's saying a lot, considering I just got done reading this article. A failed white collar crook tries to fake his own death, but out of incompetence ends up trying to commit suicide in a pup tent -- and fails! I love this story. 173.49.91.243 (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted article again. See comment above. Keep it removed or you'll be banned.Dryamaka (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Banned? I hope that was an attempt at humor. Although your "not in the dictionary, not in wikipedia" slogan exposes a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose (e.g. no proper nouns exist in a dictionary), your argument seems to essentially be that this person doesn't meet the WP:NOTE requirements. I beg to differ: Mr. Schrenker has received significant coverage (on a daily basis for the past several days) in reliable sources (which are cited in the article) that are independent of the subject. The article should not be deleted. john factorial (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a criminal infobox to the article. All we need is an image of him. I have one, but I didn't upload it yet. So can someone else upload the image and add it to the infobox? Thanks! ;) Mikeytatelive (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The willful abandonment of a plane in mid-flight gives the incident an aeronautic notability. The tone of the article, however, could be reigned in several notches... he owned luxury cars, etc. 842U (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Is he Jewish?

Is he Jewish?

I don't know. You should sign your posts with a "~~~~". And if you want to be constructive, then post your comments in a constructive manner. You cannot put things on biographies articles that could be misconstrued as inaproriatly offensive or libelous. See WP:BLP. Charles Edward (Talk)

More recent sources

Just went hunting to see what's new..

• "Marcus Schrenker to be released from federal custody Friday". 13 WTHR Indianapolis. 18 September 2015.
• King, Robert (September 17, 2017). "From Geist mansion to homeless, Marcus Schrenker's daughter struggles to move on". Indianapolis Star.
• nothing new in the NYT...

-- Jytdog (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Neutral POV

Hi. I am a criminal justice professor and wanted to write you about this article. I am concerned that it is not accurate and seems to be biased. I really like Wikipedia and use it a lot. Although, I was recently researching Marcus Schrenker and noticed that his life and accomplishments are considerably different that what you have written in this article. I am not sure who authored this, and don't want to know honestly, but it appears to have an agenda or narrative that is historical and static, not dynamic. Also, some of the sourcing is not credible. Some of the information is also inaccurate. For example, Marcus Schrenker is not on probation in Florida and was never charged in Florida. Also, there is no Federal Parole. It was abolished in the 80's. You don't mention who he is today and still list him as a financial advisor. I saw all this not to be judgemental but to express my concern for lack of credibility and accuracy. Maybe vetting the sources and using non-media sources would be a good start. Also, Marc Schrenker and Marcus Schrenker are two totally different people. There is also a Mark Schrenker. My students also looked at this page and found some errors and will provide them to you if you are interested.

Jonbrauer1968 (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Jonbrauer1968, I do not see any obvious examples of wording that would violate the neutral point of view. Please be more specific. Most of the references in the article are to mainstream news outlets that are accepted as reliable sources throughout the encylopedia. Please be specific about which sources are not credible. You can find out who has written the article by clicking the "view history" tab at the top. At this time, 186 editors have contributed to the article (including you), although the top five editors have contributed about 75% of the content. As for inaccuracies, you can change anything that does not appear in reliable sources, but you should leave the content that accurately summarizes reliable sources in the article. If in doubt about the reliability of a source, discuss the matter at the Reliable sources noticeboard. As for "non media" sources, if this man and his crimes are discussed in better sources, like books published by university presses or major mainstream publishers, then certainly add such sources to the article. As for his occupation, encylopedia articles list occupations during a person's productive career. A retired painter and a dead painter are still painters. As a professor, surely you understand the need for clarity and precision. At this point, I know that some things in the article bother you, but I do not know just what those things are. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

User has indef blocked for evading a previous block. Greyjoy ^talk 03:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)