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. ✗plicit 14:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Oscar Markus[edit]

David Oscar Markus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Was AfD'd back in 2013. Like that prior version, this is full of citations which merely mention the attorney. Many are primary sources. But can't find enough in-depth coverage of them in independent, reliable sources to show that they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm the author of this article. I'm admittedly relatively new to Wikipedia, and I know you all have a lot more experience, but I'm not sure why this article is marked for deletion. I took care not to cite to anything that David Markus had any control over whatsoever, and all the points are supported by independent sources including many sources to highly reputable publications. The article does not cite to his blog or web site as a source. The purpose of the Federalist Society cite was merely that he spoke there, not for the content of what he said (which was the self-written part). While it is true that many of the citations are not in depth coverage, they are used only as evidence of single-point facts (Markus was quoted here, Markus wrote this there, etc.) that are not suitable for in-depth coverage. And there is a fair amount of in-depth coverage as well in the 46 citations. As Markus' former student from several years ago, I have followed his career and he is one of the most well-known criminal defense lawyers in the country, and his list of high profile clients is substantial (all citations supported by independent news coverage of the representation). I also think it is important to have a listing for him to differentiate him from David (Evans) Markus who is also a Harvard Law grad. That's actually how I thought to do this entry - I searched David Markus and got the wrong guy.

Before working on this article, I spent some time looking at other biographical pages to see what the standards are. Even a casual 5 minute search reveals dozens of biographies of far less notable people with FAR less substantiation (and many far less notable). Here's just a handful of examples: Anthony J. Casey, Maura R. Grossman, Roy Black, Howard Shelanski, Sean M. Berkowitz, Marvin Bower, Steve Davis (scientist). There must be thousands of people on wikipedia that have weaker entries with less substantiation and less notability than this one. I don't think I saw a single biography of anyone with 46 sources, and I could have included double that many but didn't want to overdue it.

I'm thinking maybe I erred in including his basic biographical info at the top that I got from an old resume I had from when he was in his class. I read a wikipedia guide that said it was acceptable to cite those basic things with no substantiation, but perhaps a solution would be to delete that stuff and just leave the details of his notable publications, clients, podcast, etc., all of which are supported by independent reputable sources.

Thanks for considering. Jane Whitmor (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi sorry one more thought: I don't know anything about an article from 2013 or what the content was, but wanted to point out that most of what makes Markus worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia has occurred since 2013, so it seems that prior entry may not be relevant. Jane Whitmor (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete support the initiator. The sources are empty if to look for good coverage. --Driodr (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A close look at the sources show that (i) nearly all are trivial mentions rather than in-depth coverage (ii) a lot are self-published (eg, the subject's blog, his firm's site, a profile at the Federalist Society webpage that was provided by the subject that the site disclaims doing any editing or fact checking (iii) dead links, or links that don't mention him at all, (iv) primary sources and (v) other sources that would not pass as reliable at RSN for a BLP. It also looks like the editor who wrote this article is pretty close to being a SPA. Banks Irk (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but I would expect it to pass in a few years. He's a leading federal criminal defense lawyer and he's one or two decent-sized newspaper profiles away from establishing notability. Jahaza (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks like it was deleted in a previous AfD in 2013 for the same reason. If we establish in this discussion that the person would meet notability if it had 1-2 reliable sources, it seems a bit of grey area. – The Grid (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2022 (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.