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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance[edit]

Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Once the hype related to self-promotion or character assassination is removed, there seems to be little notability about this organisation. It says it's a non-profit watchdog organization for consumers, but it makes its money from certifying physicians; the bulk of its citations from Wikipedia are to unsourced articles that refer readers to directories of member physicians. Wikipedia notability requires significant coverage by reliable sources; search results for this organization provide only passing quotes in news articles or unrelated articles about personal privacy issues. I could find no direct links to the mainstream articles (O Magazine, etc.) promoted by the org's press releases. Flowanda | Talk 05:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article at present lacks reliable sources that comment on the importance of this organization. Some time back, it had more references, but they appeared to be self-promotional and they got removed by people who were doing cleanup. Having looked at the history I don't see anything that I would care to restore as a reference at this moment. In the Google results, this WP article is at the top of the rankings next only to CRSQA's own website, which is a suggestion that the organization is not too well known on the web. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator, and in agreement with EdJohnston's astute summary. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain Please consider the obvious potential for conflict of interest as I am the Executive Director of USAEyes. That potential conflict does not, however, make the facts less valid.

I find that the logic for deletion of this article is circular and self-fulfilling. It seems that a major consideration is how the Wikipedia policy on verifiability is interpreted. Specifically "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

The fact is, this organization is the reliable source for much information about Lasik and similar refractive surgery procedures, the organization is referenced by other reliable sources, and that information should not be disregarded. Furthermore, when other reliable sources point to this organization as a reliable source of information, those references within the USAEyes Wiki article have been removed as "self promotion".

Please review the 03:32, 29 November 2008 edit. USAEyes is completing the long-term multi-site retrospective laser vision correction patient satisfaction Competence Opinion Relative to Expectation (CORE) survey. The preliminary results of the USAEyes CORE survey were presented to the FDA as part of an April 2008 hearing on patient satisfaction issues. The logic for removal of this information from Wikipedia was; "Removed content sourced only to group's presentation and own findings". Yes, it is a presentation to the FDA by USAEyes, but it is a presentation that the FDA found appropriate to publish. Yes it is the group's own findings, and that is because USAEyes is the entity conducting the survey.

The preliminary information has not been promoted by our organization via press release or submitted for medical journal publication because we feel it is most appropriate to promote and publish the full study. The preliminary information is valid and was presented to the FDA because of the importance of the data to that specific hearing. The FDA decided it was valid and important enough to publish. The FDA seems to me to be a reliable source that has referenced the USAEyes CORE survey. It did not need to publish the CORE presentation, but elected to do so. When this Wiki edit was completed, the reference to the FDA's docket replaced the USAEyes CORE outcome data, rather than the reference to the actual survey presentation with the data. It seems that the outcome information would be more valuable to a reader than the fact the data was presented to the FDA. It seems that the outcome data should be included in the Wiki for USAEyes as this is important and notable consumer information unique to the organization.

Please review the 21:13, 24 March 2008 removal of links to external government testimony, news articles, and ophthalmic trade articles. The justification for removal was; "Removing Gov't testimony and News subsections -- those external links aren't needed (and seem to be there for promotional purposes).". These are articles from US News & World Report, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and others who directly reference USAEyes as a reliable source of Lasik information. The article *Ways & Means testimony to the Subcommittee on Health by Ha T. Tu, Senior Health Researcher, Center for Studying Health System Change, is a study by an independent professor about Lasik medical information on the Internet that specifically cites USAEyes as a reliable source of information.

The O! (Oprah Magazine) article not being on the Internet was cited as somehow making the article less valid for inclusion. Surprisingly, only a very few articles in the printed O! are included on the magazine's website. The article, where USAEyes is cited three times as a source of reliable information, does exist even if it is not on the Internet. I'd gladly provide a copy to those who are interested.

Funding for USAEyes comes exclusively from fees charged to Lasik surgeons who seek to have their patient outcomes evaluated and certified by the organization. The organization does not receive remuneration for patient referrals. This model was determined by the State of California where the organization is incorporated and IRS as an appropriate funding source for a nonprofit organization. Any suggestion of impropriety or inappropriate influence is without substantiation.

What I find most surprising is the suggestion that if a Wikipedia article is high on the Google search engine results page (SERP), then "the organization is not too well known on the web". Google "cancer", "US government", "NASA", "Einstein", "Red Cross", "Microsoft", "Obama", "IRS", “Cisco”, “Apple”, “AOL”, and just about any other subject of importance. I doubt it would be would suggested that these are not too well known because the Wikipedia article on each is in the top 5 SERP.

Rather than deleting the article, let’s replace the edits that removed the items referencing the organization, the organization’s breakthrough CORE patient study, and other valid points of interest past and future. I’ve undone the outside citation edit referenced above as a start. You may, of course, revert it if you find it necessary. Or, perhaps, replace the CORE study and other relevant information that has already been submitted but edited away. Ghagele | Talk

Comments. The FDA links document only that your powerpoint presentation was entered into the minutes of a meeting; the government is not "publishing" or "referencing" your study or your statements. Verifying notability of your association's study would be provided from links to your study's final results published in recognized authoritative medical journals.

It's not the availability of the Oprah magazine article online that makes the information suspect; it's that your links go nowhere but to your website's press release with information and quotes that may or may not be part of the published article...but there seems to be no way to verify the information in the article or any offers to provide actual copies to interested readers. Flowanda | Talk 07:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Discussion. The FDA is not required to publish the preliminary results of the USAEyes CORE patient survey as presented at the April hearing on Lasik quality of life and safety issues. The FDA only needed to reference it in the minutes of the meeting. The FDA elected to do both. However you choose to characterize this publication, it is outside verification as described in the Wikipedia rules cited above.

It appears that your interpretation of Wikipedia rules are that if an organization authors a copyrighted study and limits publication (at least for the time being) to its own website (completely ignoring the fact that the information was presented at a government hearing and published by that agency), then it is not a valid citation or "verifiable". You also suggest that a study is not verifiable until it is published in "recognized authoritative medical journals". I do not think this is an accurate interpretation of Wikipedia rules. Many studies are never published in medical journals, yet are cited. Agencies and organizations often strictly limit publication and distribution of their studies.

It also appears that you believe if a news article is not on the Internet, its existence is so suspect that it should not be referenced or cited. Anyone who wants to verify the O! Magazine article simply needs to request a copy of it from the O! Magazine archives. It is completely verifiable. I have offered to provide you, or any interested party, a copy of the article directly. Provide an email and I'll send the entire article to you. There is no reason to delete the entire Wiki article on the organization.Ghagele | Talk

Proposal Responses to the concerns cited have been presented. Changes to the article have been made to accommodate those concerns. The O! Magazine article is verifiable so it remains, however the link to the relevant article at the USAEyes website has been removed. Multiple references were added or edited to cite independent sources for outside verifiability on several statements. The CORE study is published on the FDA website, so that reference remains, however language that may appear to place significant authority to that publication has been removed. A statement that publication of the preliminary results of the CORE study is limited and verifiability is thereby limited has been added.

The suggestion for the article's removal is respectfully asked to be withdrawn.Ghagele | Talk

Comment. Ghagele has greatly enlarged the article with the addition of news reports that say little or nothing about the Council itself. Hagele himself, or the Council, have presented testimony about Lasik in various forums. That is how the Council's name gets around. If any of these news mentions are of permanent value, they might add some bit of information to our article about Lasik. Though the CRSQA has an announced mission regarding monitoring and improvement of eye surgery, there is almost no way of telling how well it is doing that, and whether any third parties have drawn any conclusions about the Council's importance. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2008 (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.