Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Goolnik


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 12:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

James Goolnik

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This subject fails WP:BASIC criteria. None of his achievements are notable singularly or in the aggregate. Where he does appear in coverage, he's most often speaking about the true topic of coverage in his capacity as a representative (fails WP:42). Lots of WP:BLPPRIMARY, too. JFHJr (㊟) 18:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

He has an article on his career:

http://www.bodmagazine.co.uk/domino/html/BoD6digi/index.html#/19/zoomed (Smilecreator) As of 25th June 2012 he founded the Dental Charity Heart Your Smile registered with the Charity Commission, registration number: 1147806, he is on the board of trustees: http://www.heartyoursmile.co.uk/about-us/ (Smilecreator)
 * Comment ...First UK dentist to use a PR company to write a Wikipedia entry... He urgently needs to find another PR company. Dalliance (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The entry was written by Andy Rossiter, no PR company. (Smilecreator)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Cameron11598  (Converse) 20:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Cameron11598  (Converse) 20:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete slightly disappointed this made it through the AFC process just over a year ago. Ignoring the above comment, which was added to the article at a later date, most of the page reads like a sanitised resume. Creating a business does not infer notability and neither does become a director of an organisation. None of his achievements are supported by in-depth reliable sources, meaning that this fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Funny  Pika! 21:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep A Google search reveals that he's regularly consulted and interviewed by major UK press outlets, so he's clearly viewed as an expert in his field, and thus is notable enough for inclusion. I suggest that the article be rewritten and properly sourced, to both reflect the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia and remove the promotional tone of the current article.  (On a related note, I would also suggest that he immediately fire his PR company, because they definitely did him no favors with this Wikipedia entry.) HillbillyGoat (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So every expert is notable? I'm unconvinced that single part of the wider criteria would be enough to carry this subject over the threshold. Commentary on the actual topic of coverage, especially as a spokesperson, isn't really coverage of his expertise. If he were the subject of coverage by unrelated parties, namely about his expertise in the field, that would be another story entirely. Then, WP:BASIC or WP:GNG might be clearly met... JFHJr (㊟) 23:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete -- If we had British Academy of Cosmetic Dentistry, I might hAVE VOTED "keep", based on his presidency of it. If the press want a comment on his subject, they are likely to look to the head of his professional organisation, but being head ofg a NN organisation cannot make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * KeepThe organisation DOES exist: http://bacd.com/ Mr Goolnik was a founding member you can see many articles by him: (Smilecreator) — Smilecreator (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The fact that the organisation exists, and that Goolnik is a founder member of it does not make him notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * KeepI feel I can improve the article and offer valuable information,defining more relating to his book and charity; while linking it to other articles and Wiki definitions. talk —Preceding undated comment added 06:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC) — BrendaGreenUSA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Yes, but can you show evidence that he satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines? If he doesn't, then no amount of rewriting the article will change the notability of the subject of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep President of a national organization does usually mean notability if the organization is important, which means either WP notability or apparent eligibility for it as the major professional association in a field. The organization meets this and should have an article, and so should he. A rewriting is indicated--I'd have improved it further before accept it from AfC,    the usual standard for accepting an AfC is that the article is not likely to be reasonably challenged at AfD, not that it just barely get a pass here after a reasonable challenge.   DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, DGG, I am sure that you have enough experience to know that notability is not inherited. Even if the organisation is notable, we still need evidence that Goolnik is notable. See WP:NOTINHERITED. (Besides, you have provided no evidence that the organisation is notable, apart from simply stating that it is. "The major professional association in a field"? Maybe, but I have seen no source that says so.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the advice of WP:ATA is widely regarded. I think if you re-read the examples in the section you point to you will recognize that they are all examples of incidental or coincidental association.  Being chosen to be the president, or an officer, of an organization, is a form of peer recognition.  So, if the organization of your peers has some notability, than being recognized by them conveys notability.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - I cleaned up the article some. Appears notable. AuthorAuthor (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Simply saying "Appears notable" without saying why is no help. See WP:ITSNOTABLE. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I found Daily Mail, The Times and The Guardian citations, which I added to the article. Passes WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The Guardian article that you cited gives two short quotes from Goolnik. The Daily Mail consulted Goolnik to provide an opinion on a subject they were reporting on: he was not himself the subject they were reporting on. The page on the Times web site that you cited gives no more than a two-sentence mention of him. It looks as though it may be an excerpt from an article that is not fully available online, in which case the full article may or may not give substantial coverage of him, but that is speculation, and not verifiable. As far as the pages you have actually cited go, there is nothing that could be regarded as substantial coverage of Goolnik. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG Easily meets requirements, referencing just needs improving. Quit the preachy hounding of everybody Watson, it's doing you no favours.♦  Dr. ☠ Blofeld  18:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Notability based, in part on peer recognition, on being widely chosen for comment by the press, and being an author, clearly push him past the boundary for notability. Geo Swan (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2013 (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.