Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T. Markus Funk

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 Soft delete. L Faraone 00:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

T. Markus Funk[edit]

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

Article does not sufficiently assert the notability of the subject. Most of the sources provided are either dead links, only mention Funk in passing and therefore do not qualify as significant coverage, or are affiliated with the subject and not independent, so it appears that this person fails WP:GNG. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:11, 8 May 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Subject may have a weak claim to notability under WP:AUTHOR for his books (the one on the ICC received a full length review in French [1]), but I wasn't able to find any further reviews. His citations are too low to pass WP:PROF as a legal scholar (unsurprisingly, since while his scholarly work is extremely impressive for a practitioner, his main job is as a practicing lawyer, not a law professor). I do not find sufficient coverage of the subject himself to justify WP:BIO. The delete !vote is weak because his notability is borderline, between all his activities, but is not quite there yet, IMO. Furthermore, the article in its current form is so strongly boosterish and promotional that WP:TNT may apply. Ray^Talk 14:42, 18 May 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.