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.
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
"Irwin+Smigel"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvwNnYw4HQAhULs1QKHWxpAyIQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=%22Irwin%20Smigel%22&f=false 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.
Cullen328Let's discuss it 03:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
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.
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)reply
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)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.
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.
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
"Irwin+Smigel"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvwNnYw4HQAhULs1QKHWxpAyIQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=%22Irwin%20Smigel%22&f=false 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.
Cullen328Let's discuss it 03:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
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.
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)reply
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)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.