Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay B. Reznick

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jay B. Reznick[edit]

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

Appears to have one or two published articles, but even after removing the advert/resume tone the article does not appear to meet Wikipedia's guideline for notability of an individual. tedder (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run-of-the-mill plastic surgeon in private practice. He has published a few articles, but they are not heavily cited by others in the field per Google Scholar. Nothing found at Google News Archive. --MelanieN (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and MelanieN. Still has overtones of promotion. Peridon (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Page has been updated, waiting on feedback. Thanks. Rategreat88 (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC) — Rategreat88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hi rategreat88, none of the additions help to meet Wikipedia's guideline for notability of an individual. Let me go through them.

First, the entries in the "Publication" section could contribute to notability under WP:AUTHOR or Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria, but don't do so.
Only two of the publications are scholarly journals, so the slightly relaxed "notability of academics" does not apply (unless "substantial impact" in academia can be demonstrated, which doesn't appear likely)
To run through the publications them in terms of being reliable sources, most are approximately magazines, commercial whitepapers, or online forums:
- cerecdoctors.com is a commercial training program for a commercial piece of dental equipment.
- towniecentral.com is effectively a forum, it's a peer-to-peer site for professionals.
- dental-journal is a commercial news site.
- implantpracticeus is a continuing-education commercial site and magazine.
- stemsave.com is a commercial company.
- cda.org is California Dental Association, which should qualify as an academic source- it's one of the two exceptions to these for being higher up in verifiability.
- The one publication given in the faqs.org link is apparently in the Journal of the American Dental Association, which more than qualifies as an academic source- but doesn't lend much towards establishing Reznick's notability.
- In other words, with two exceptions, these sources might be useful to use as secondary sources to describe Reznick, but don't contribute towards notability.
Moving on to the references:
- declares graduation date and proves existence, does not contribute towards establishing notability
- blog for CEREC, covered above
- entry for dentral-tribune, covered above
- towniemeeting peer-to-peer site, covered above
- [1], [2], indicates Reznick is faculty at a continuing-education company; either doesn't contribute towards establishing notability or would need to be handled under WP:TEACHER, where Reznick would need to be evaluated as a teacher.
- a blog entry discussing some forum drama
- Reznick is on the board of a "practical journal"
- case studies for a commercial product
- case study for a commercial product (I think)
- Reznick is on the board of a trade association

Overall, there's plenty of proof that Reznick exists and has a commercial practice. There's indication he's active in his commercial field, but to me, he doesn't meet the burden of WP:BIO and other standards, such as WP:GNG. In other words, having published some papers is different than being widely cited for those papers, or being the leader in a very specific field. One good rule of thumb for the many links given (above) is to see how many of them have articles on Wikipedia. For instance, CEREC does, but not CEREC Doctors or Dental Journal. tedder (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article does not meet Wikipedia's notablilty guidelines and is nothing more than free commercial advertising. Moreover, there are many clues which lead me to believe that the principal author User:Rategreat88 is the subject of the article.--Hokeman (talk) 04:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet notability guidelines and smacks of a spammy vanity bio in tone: A front-runner and consultant for emerging technologies that are revolutionizing dentistry... Carrite (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2011 (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.