Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Solomon (author)


 * 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. Michig (talk) 06:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

John Solomon (author)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Page that has basically been a auto bio that has stuck around for over 8 years! And considering the only edits are by publishers also...no notability either. Wgolf (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  05:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  05:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * −Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * delete he published one book, with a small publishing house, Red Ribbon Press, in the U.K.  findable on Amazon .  Here I revise one of the poems posted on Amazon.com:


 * When I came home from another
 * disastrous day at the office,
 * and found an AFD re: an erotic poet,
 * when I least expected it,
 * you unbuttoned your blouse for me,
 * removed your clothing slowly,
 * and my searching showed me no sources
 * and so iVoted delete
 * oh, so quickly!E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Makes no claim of notability that would pass WP:WRITER, and cites exactly no reliable source coverage. Simply being able to confirm that a person exists is not a notability freebie on Wikipedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Dang the fact that this page has survived since 2006....!Wgolf (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To be fair, our inclusion and content standards — what counted as a valid notability claim in the first place, how much sourcing had to be provided, etc. — were very different in 2006 than they are now. Plus even if an article does objectively fail our standards, somebody has to notice it before anything can be done about it. Bearcat (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.