Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Goolnik (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Goolnik[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No evidence of notability. Many dead links and searches reveal nothing else other than social media, adverts, directories, a British Dental Association blog etc. etc. The few working links are either internal to the Dentistry niche or the Daily Mail (Australia)!. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think the problem is that there are no sources. The problem is that the sources are buried on the fourth and fifth paged of Google and are quite old. Like this one,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1272248.stm

or this one

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/have-teeth-will-travel-bmkft69t8cd

I think the subject meets WP:GNG but the page has been written like a CV and the sources used are either primary or self-published promo. Perhaps WP:ATD is a better route? Let me take a swing at it, see if I can turn it into a proper page. 8Lizard^{talk to me!!!} 12:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's also this https://www.standard.co.uk/news/city-bonuses-fuel-boom-for-dentists-6963900.html

Interestingly, all three sources show up green at WP:RS/P. Although dead links should be fixed or removed and promotional content should be removed altogether as per WP:NOT Furthermore, if the page is overly reliant on primary sources it should be tagged accordingly.8Lizard^{talk to me!!!} 14:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this page is written as a self published vanity piece. Please delete it forthwith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grotsmashah (talk • contribs) 13:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Most of the articles in the sources are "advertorials", typically paid for advertisements written as editorials. Delete as almost certainly self-authored sources and hence article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.229.22 (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWhile I agree that most of the content about self-published books and various schemes and charities aren't worthy of inclusion, there is a small amount of RS from the early 00s making him borderline WP:GNG. I'm not saying the page meets WP:NBLP that would be an Indiana Jones-style leap, but it is interesting that Grotsmashah joined WP after the page was nominated and the only other delete vote comes from some random IP address and is putting forward the exact same argument. Funny that....8Lizard^{talk to me!!!} 21:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He isn't noteworthy in the profession or wider public. Most in the profession would have no idea who he is, other than a small group of people who are directly involved with him through fringe organisations. It's somewhat difficult to criticise an article on anything other than the self promotional element when that is all that exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.175.49 (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Grotsmashah Just in case you aren't aware, this isn't a ballot. What we are doing here is discussing whether the page is suitable for this encyclopaedia going forward, the number of votes doesn't necessarily influence the outcome one way or another so sending in the cavalry probably isn't the best approach. Now, you may very well be right, the notability bar is much much higher for living people than it is for say, 16th-century lutists and I would be inclined to change my position to a Weak keep if you can persuade me.8Lizard^{talk to me!!!} 12:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scruffy 8 Lizard I'm not Grotsmashah. Two of the IP comments are mine, I am not trying to make this a poll and know that this is how it works. You may think you are protecting this page, but this page is vandalism of the concept of Wikipedia. Don't make assumptions about others and their motives. Wikipedia is not for self promotion of people who are not noteworthy. Now I could make this personal as you did, but Golnik is not noteworthy at all, others are far more noteworthy and still wouldn't meet the criteria. This page wouldn't exist if not self-authored. You may notice this AfD was added by Velella, not Grotsmashah— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.5.228 (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfD is not cleanup. A discussion of the sources presented as in-depth, independent, and reliable should take place, to determine if GNG is indeed met or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources largely paid-for promo pieces or PR release based. Therefore sources are not impartial — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.229.22 (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still weak keep This IP hopping SPA who keeps on leaving unsigned messages all over the place has failed to persuade me.8Lizard^{talk to me!!!} 12:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:40, 11 February 2020 (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.