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 11:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Solomon[edit]

Paul Solomon (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)

Having been notified of this article through WP:FTN, I found that the sourcing was entirely to acolytes and to primary sources stored by his eponymous/posthumous foundation. Looking for independent sources on this person, I find essentially nothing (there is a much more famous Paul Solomon who is not included at Wikipedia who shows up very high in search results, for example). As such, I do not believe this biography is worthy of inclusion at Wikipedia by any of our normal notability metrics. It looks like it was started as a soapbox and coatrack. jps (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal and Spirituality. jps (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per OP. The sourcing is miserable, the article is full of nonsense and provides no evidence of notability. NightHeron (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There does not appear to be the coverage in reliable, independent sources that we would need in order to write a biography. XOR'easter (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per what other commenters have written. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the entire article seems to be sourced to a rather small number of books which themselves appear to be merely promotional of Solomon's work; with a lack of independent sourcing and analysis, I'm not sure this qualifies for an article. --Jayron32 16:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As OP says, article has scant sources and those that exist are linked to his associates. AtFirstLight (talk) 19:56, 20 April 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.