Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Slootsky (doctor)

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. Courcelles (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Slootsky (doctor)

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

Non-notable person. Dr. Slootsky is a dentist of no particularly notable achievement (he is an adjunct faculty member at a local university who has published a few articles in dental journals) who participated in a charitable event ("Dentists Climb for a Cause") of no particular notability, who "made history" to become part of the first father/son team to participate in this not-particularly-notable charitable event. Local news grabbed hold of the local interest story, but nothing more. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A throughoughly unnotable dentist. Even if he had climed Mount Everest it would not make him notable, but Mount Ranier is just laughable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's element of notability from the references. I also think the article passes the wiki neutrality test.Rosemaryujoh (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Rosemaryujoh: Could you indicate which reference you think give an "element of notability"? I don't interpret them that way and I'd like to know what I'm missing. Also, what is the "wiki neutrality test"? There's no issue of neutrality mentioned in this discussion. Neutrality is not generally a reason for deleting an article: non-neutral articles can be improved, but articles about non-notable people can't because there just aren't the valid sources to draw on. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Johnpacklambert. I don't see any shred of notability, even if every factoid could be verified and the article were re-written not to be a mere press release. Bearian (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No plausible claim to notability. Agree with above that this is basically a local-interest story. Agricola44 (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2015 (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.