Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Oscar Markus

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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Oscar Markus

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

Not notable. Sourced from SPS material. Contains mere puffery, such as "worked for so-and-so who became ....". – S. Rich (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A classic example of
WP:GNG notability by hiding potential good sources in a haystack of bad ones. The ones that appear to be in high-enough profile sources (e.g. the Miami Herald story) don't have enough depth of coverage of the subject to convince me of his notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 25 December 2013 (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.