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 Keep. Shimeru 08:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Solomon[edit]

Jay Solomon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is a reposted page, originally at Jay M Solomon. I speedied this as a repost, but was denied because the original page had been speedy deleted and not subject to an AfD. The subject is utterly non-notable and is one of countless advocates for countless issues worldwide. Wikipedia is not a place to store your personal resume, and this article certainly looks like an advertisement. A G search for "Jay Solomon" bully (since the name is fairly common) yields less than 200 results. I can think of no reason why this page should be kept. Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 20:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable, seems to be an ad. All google results appear to be ads.Nenyedi ^TalkContribs_@ 21:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

last time i checked, wikipedia is a place where people search for, and find information on a wide range of people, places and issues. this article certainly falls into wikipedia's raison d'etre. search wiki and you will find COUNTLESS other articles like this one. if you're going to delete one, you better delete them all. i think that would be a tragety for wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.161.175 (talk • contribs).

Articles are subject to general notability guidelines. Luke! 03:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is valuable and should not be deleted. There is no reason for it's deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.161.175 (talk • contribs).

what is with wiki all over the news these days? they're going nuts for accuracy... in the end, this just leads to useful information being deleted. there is nothing in the wikipedia deletion policy that justifies removing this article. the subject is relevant and noteworthy.

• How could you possibly have a problem with demanding accuracy in an online encylopedia? NW036 22:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability not accuracy justifies deleting articles. Luke! 03:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nothing. but you are not claiming that this article is inaccurate, are you? you're claiming that it has no relevance. that is simply not the case. check through wikipedia. you will see countless similar enteries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.161.175 (talk • contribs).

• Comment - Many of which should be deleted as well. Plus, yes, I am arguing that the article uses weasel words and boosterism, a form of inaccuracy. Regardless, this page is not the place for a back-and-forth. Please make your statement/argument and allow others to do so without cluttering up the page. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 02:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree that this page should not be deleted. Wikipedia is a form for information - all information; not just the information that certain editors wish to promote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.161.175 (talk • contribs)

It has to be notably verifiable information. Luke! 03:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not certain if this is particularly relevant to the discussion, but the Toronto Star featured an article about Solomon in 2002. (Caroline Mulroney, "A former victim speaks out about bullying", 30 September 2002, E06.) I've found three other passing references in the "respectable press". CJCurrie 02:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curious, do you have this paper? Cause the Star's online search feature only has the last seven days worth of publications. I couldn't find it via Google either (Keyword "Toronto Star" "Jay Solomon"). Luke! 03:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search the archives - it's there. I don't think this is sufficient to qualify for an article though. Mindmatrix 22:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. The subject is of some notable significance. GreenJoe 02:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The standard for WP:BIO is multiple independent non-trivial articles. Lexis-nexis produces six articles for "Jay Solomon" and "bullying". This need to be added to the several already in the notes, which would have been enough for the keep. Bucketsofg 02:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Filling in some of the holes would be a start. There are just too many statements claiming notability without sources ("lectured to thousands", "more well known anti-bullying experts", "respected freelancer", etc). It needs to be re-written for tone, and it needs to lose the resume attitude. But it passes WP:V and the letter of WP:N thats all thats needed. Keep - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 04:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This entry follows both WP:V and WP:N and should therefor be kept. --207.245.44.227 12:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)K8De[reply]
• Keep This article matches the rules and regulations set forth by Wikipedia for BIOs. If you want to clean it up, that's fine, but there is no justifiable reason to delete it whatsoever.--Labelboy 20:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ezeu 01:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hard to say right now. The article feels a bit spammy. Yeah, he's doing a good thing here, but...well, I like to think I do good things, but I don't have an article about me, now, do I? The references need some cleanup. For now, I'm going to Abstain, but I'm kinda waffling to a delete in its current state. Those who say keep, please, put some polish on it. --Dennisthe2 02:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going with Keep per User:Labelboy's rewrites. --Dennisthe2 17:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - he's notable enough, in my opinion, for his article to be included. If it seems like the article is spammy, then rewrite it. - Richard Cavell 02:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - ive tried to do a bit of editing to make it less spammy. if anyone has other suggestions, please do the same. there are tons of mentions of him on google, so more sources could also be added. --Labelboy 03:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good work on the rewrite, I'll consider that good enough. --Dennisthe2 17:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as he has been the subject of newspaper stories, notability is not an issue it appears. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems to me there is a clear consensus... this article is very worthy of keeping here on wiki.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.103.161.175 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep per Bucketsofg, a rather open-and-shut case if you ask me. RFerreira 03:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no reason to delete this article. it's well sourced and relevant. kind of a no-brainer in my opinion.--Rubbish82 13:35, 22 March 2007 (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.