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. NW (Talk) 23:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark A. Meyer (Attorney)[edit]

Mark A. Meyer (Attorney) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Typically tiresome resume, more or less lifted from here and here. He's met some famous people, but that doesn't mean he deserves space in an encyclopedia. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I can't find sources that establish notability, so fails WP:GNG and WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- notability not established, sources indicate pretty standard fare for any middling professional career. N2e (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Very very weak keep but redirect. If all of his listings in all of those Who's Who - type directories can be verified, then he is marginally about as notable as I am, which is to say, right on the edge. Nothing in the stub, which reads like an autobiography, notes whether he's been an officer in the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, nor whether he's been in the American Bar Association house of delegates, either of which could settle the issue in his favor. Yet there is one more problem: there is an attorney from North Dakota with the same name who is arguably, more notable [1]. If the consensus is to delete, I'll go along with that, too. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see nothing convincing in the article that would assert notability. Independent coverage is minuscule (as far as I can tell, reduced to a one short mention of his visit with Iliescu, as issued by a gvt press agency); the rest is promotional and merely attests that Meyer exists (which I think no one is doubting). Among the chaotic and unconvincing "references", a Wikipedia article is cited for some reason I can't begin to fathom. The person is non-notable, the article is garbage. Dahn (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2009 (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.