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. Ignoring the SPAs, consensus is clear. I'm also going to salt to prevent recreations from editors with COIs Courcelles (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Boxer Wachler[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

After removing selfpublished and misinterpreted sources there are no sources left. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party evidence indicating how this person meets WP:BIO notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Dr. Wachler has been widely covered in the media as originally indicated in the sources. Additionally, a simple Google news search reveals he is often in the news https://www.google.com/search?q=brian+boxer+wachler&oq=brian+b&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j0l4.2422j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8#tbm=nws&q=%22boxer+wachler%22 This person meets the criteria for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennydarko (talk • contribs) 23:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC) — Bennydarko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Keep. Dr. Brian Boxer Wachler is a well-known corneal specialist. All sources of media including TV and newspaper articles listed below are from verified sources which I confirmed by performing a Google news search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffray2 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC) — Cliffray2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Keep. I reviewed the page here (https://web.archive.org/web/20150820164409/https:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Boxer_Wachler) There is a claim to notoriety here, in that Dr. Boxer Wachler treated the vision of Olympic gold medalist Steven Holcomb, featured in NBC news coverage (http://www.today.com/news/olympic-bobsledder-overcomes-depression-eye-disorder-create-lasting-legacy-2D11837794). This and related television coverage, establishes Dr. Boxer Wachler’s notoriety as an authority in eye surgery, specifically for keratoconus. He is also a recurring medical contributor on the national television program, The Doctors, and has appeared in segments on NBC Nightly News, Good Morning America, CNN, and in other news sources such as New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post, Huffington Post. He is also a TED Fulbright Speaker (http://www.tedxfulbright2015.com/#!boxer/c1oyc)

I counted, of the 216 total sources listed (https://web.archive.org/web/20150820164409/https:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Boxer_Wachler), 10 are self-published which should be deleted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR00x0Shq9s&list=PLSX2cKGbtvMz1PkxtBmckDauwuCFjab3B&index=6, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdJtYwT7bA0&list=PLSX2cKGbtvMz1PkxtBmckDauwuCFjab3B&index=8, Credentials http://www.boxerwachler.com/credentials/index.htm , Dr. Brian Boxer Wachler's Curriculum Vitae http://www.boxerwachler.com/BBW%20CV.pdf, Practice website showing cited celebrity and nationally recognized patients. http://www.boxerwachler.com, Practice website showing cited celebrity and nationally recognized patients. http://www.boxerwachler.com, News segments can be viewed in Media Player n practice website http://www.boxerwachler.com/, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WLIyoPtW3A#t=14, Boxer Wachler receives letter from Department of Defense for contribution and mentoring to ophthalmologists in military http://www.keratoconusinserts.com/mamc.html, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFept_kyHosand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adubbins1 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC) — Adubbins1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"Practice website showing cited celebrity and nationally recognized patients". really. That sock/meatpuppet does not understand Wikipedia a whit. My goodness. Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Concur with the preceding reviewer. The above named physician/scientist generates about 1,460 results via Google Scholar using the terms "wachler" and "cornea" alone. This, in scientific, academic and medical communities, is a strong indicator of notability. Recommend rejection of nomination for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trev5150 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC) — Trev5150 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Hum four strong keeps. If there was a couple more I would be swayed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Concur with preceding reviewers. Subject does meet criteria per WP:BIO and there are many referenced sources that establish notability Proserpine (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I believe that edits to the page on August 31 were akin to vandalism BECAUSE the objection raised was over self citing and the edits gutted the page entirely. I think the page should be kept and the edits suggested by one of the other users should be made and a discussion then had with the relevant mods on other revisions. My research indicates the doctor is noteworthy (a simple google news search combined with a google scholar search reveals that, and the page serves an important purpose. I'd be happy to help suggest edits to the mods. There is a very real interest in this doctor's work because it is unique and therefore noteworthy. If only 10 sources were poorly cited, to gut an entire page seems inappropriate. Aren't we supposed to be focused on working together to get pages right? The solution isn't deletion, it's editing. Jf3300 (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete and WP:SALT incredible WP:PROMO pressure on this article, about a marginally notable person. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC) (forgot to add salt Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

About the relentless PROMO pressure - see the COI tags at Talk:Brian_Boxer_Wachler, and see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Scubadiver99/Archive. And it is going on, even here, with all these WP:SPA !votes. Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Started another SPI here [1] Had not seen the previous one.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree on noterity he meets WP:BIO criteria - I think edits should be made, and I'd welcome a dialogue on that. Jf3300 (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to reviewing admin Interesting to note how users who haven't edited for a year or more keep coming out of hibernation to !vote on this...OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's no unaffiliated coverage besides the one source left in the article. No one can seem to point to any substantial coverage locatable outside of the doctor's own pages or self-published content. His professional position alone does not confer notability. MSJapan (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and encourage recreation It will be necessary to remove the promotional history, and it's so pervasive that the way to do that is deletion. However, I do think he's notable, just as I did in 2007. Notability as a scientist is determined by WP:PROF, for which the key standard is being recognized as an authority in his subject. We normally determine this by looking at citations to his published works. The standard varies by field, which is why the guideline attempts no exact definition. In clinical biomedicine, the literature density is rather high, but multiple papers with citations over a 100 is always enough for notability. Google Scholar shows [2] counts of 216, 202, 137, 106 ... Looking at papers on Keratoconus, [3], he's one of the 10 most cited scientists. In doing the re-creation the material mentioned by Adubbins1 is some of it so minor that it should not even be mentioned in the article--it serves rather as the example of the sort of promotionalism we need to avoid. Not every doctor who treats a notable patient is notable. Perhaps when we create the new article, we will need to semi-protect it, to prevent what seems to be the expected promotional COI editing. And the SPI should be reopened to check the accounts that have been commented keep here. My priority when I !voted keep in2007 was to get even moderately notable articles into WP; my priority now is to keep promotionalism out. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is a good reason for deletion. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete the article is not notable (however all these socks are)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete-- agree with nom and others need independent sources. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This person seems to me to be un-notable. There is a marginally adequate claim to notability in the article, which prevents speedy deletion. I have a strong impression, born from years of experience here, that the earlier strong keeps are spurious - either sockpuppets, meatpuppets or paid editors.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see that the SPI finds them unrelated. Meatpuppets then.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, fails WP:ANYBIO. Trivial coverage in the news which in this case are not reliable sources. Brandmeister^talk 22:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources I have added to the article as well as coverage here, here, and here. Note that the USA Today source says that he pioneered "Anti-Halo LASIK". Everymorning (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this was unencyclopedic fluff and i removed it. Jytdog (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And another brand new account promoting keeping [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking generally here, I know a lot of doctors, and in my experience, among the various practices, ophthalmology has the strongest culture of selling their practices. I don't know how many emails I have gotten from my local medical group's Lasik practitioners. There are actually PR companies that offer services to ophthalmologists like this, and the AAO reminds its members to be aware of their online presence. Jytdog (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was about to add his books, but I see that How We Conquered Keratoconus is published by the Boxer Wachler Vision Institute, and I also see that Mastery of Holcomb C3-R® Crosslinking for Keratoconus & Other Disorders is a magnificently self-promotional work which looks like a website put to print, published by a minor medical publisher which seems to be willing to publish almost anything. He is, however, a co-author of Refractive Surgery 2010-2011, published by the American Academy of Ophthalmology, and Hyperopia and Presbyopia, published by T&F. I'd agree with User:DGG on this one. --Slashme (talk) 21:48, 6 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.