Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irwin Smigel


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Irwin Smigel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete: irreformable business/personal promotional article. Quis separabit? 02:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep 99% of dentists are not notable. Smigel is one of the exceptions. The New York Times published a 20 paragraph article about him signed by a staff writer when he died this month. Back in 1981, New York magazine published a several page article about Smigel and his innovations. A Google Books search shows that he is discussed in many books. So, he is notable. How can the article be personally promotional? He is dead. Yes, the article has problems, such as uncited quotations, excessive red links, and overenthusiastic language. As for being "irreformable", I disagree. We have editors here on Wikipedia for a reason, and there is no reason why this article cannot be improved dramatically through a logical series of edits. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete per TNT. There may be a Wikipedia article in here somewhere but this is not it; this cannot remain in WP.  If somebody actually does the work to find the WP article that might be here I will change my !vote but this is an embarassment to WP and cannot remain. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article isn't great at the moment, but the sources above provided by Cullen328 (the NYT obit in particular) prove he passes WP:GNG easily. Nohomersryan (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Needs to be updated, and the references need to be fixed, but it meets WP:GNG; I don't see any compelling reason(s) to delete it.
 *  N. GASIETA  talk  15:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * keep and improve. Article is poorly sourced, Smiggel is notable as sources borught to AFD by editors above establishes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Before this is closed out, I just want to reiterate that I believe this is pure business promotionalism. Quis separabit?  12:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - and improve after closing. This article passes WP:GNG. However needs to be improved. But that in itself is not a reason for deletion.BabbaQ (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2016 (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.