Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean Andrew Kantis

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The consensus is that this is essentially promotion for a cause. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Andrew Kantis[edit]

Dean Andrew Kantis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable businessman and "anti-LASIK activist". Kantis has made a lot of noise about his poor LASIK surgery outcome, but the sourcing of this article is mostly primary (his own website, references to his own website on other websites, etc). What material there is in reliable sources is passing mention at best. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a problematic article. To the extent that he is noted, it is him talking about his LASIK complications... but the sourcing on even his LASIK complications is he himself. Normally, we would consider a person an WP:RS on the basics of their own health, but as he appears to have been in litigation regarding those complications, that would make them contentious and thus calling for a more reliable source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Highly notable individual. he is one of the few voices out there who are speak in against a multibillion dollar industry which claims to hae 99% sucess rates. This is what wikipedia is about. I'be been reading his ioography and i am interested in this. So are million os other people who suffer from myopia. Pass a Method talk 10:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Strong delete-- let's make sure we cover the potential adverse affects of LASIK on that article, with sources that meet WP:MEDRS, but this individual does not seem to be notable. Lesion (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...After a quick review of said page (LASIK), I did not go through each reference, but it seems that there is plenty of discussion about the potential risks. I think this page (Dean Andrew Kantis) is a WP:COATRACK, it's not about the individual as much as a place to badmouth this surgical technique in a controlled environment away from the other side of the argument. Lesion (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-- I also note a user called "Dean Andrew Kantis" has edited this page a bit (but did not create it at least). Might be worth pointing out WP:COI. Lesion (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-- COI and advert tags were placed on the article, which were later removed after a few edits by the article's creator. Lesion (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & redirect. A classic case of WP:BIO1E masquerading as a biography article. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is unnecessary in this case. If they are not notable then they are not notable. Lesion (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any reliable sources other than a couple that quote Kantis on the topic of laser eye surgery. These fall way short of what is needed for an article about any person. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an anti-Lasik coatrack at best, everything related to his advocacy is sourced to himself, we are not here to champion great causes. The notability just isn't there. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a self-serving, self-written article by somebody who is notable only to himself. Who really cares where he went on his honeymoon and that as a child he liked beach volleyball??? I also question his notability when half of the introductory paragraph about him is about his Lasik mishap. I came across this article because he is trolling on freelance writer sites for someone to spread more vitriol on the Lasik site and to save his Wiki page. He is not Wiki material and his article should be deleted. On a lighter note - I had Lasik seven years ago and I couldn't be happier. Sorry that this gentleman had an adverse reaction to it but Wikipedia is not the forum for this vendetta.Jmasiulewicz (talk)
  • To be clear and accurate, while Kantis has edited this article, he did not create it, and the article had the needless material on his honeymoon locations and such before he was editing it. Not that that defends the article as a whole... --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rounding up a flash mob to try and save this bio article is taking conflict of interest to a new level. This is ban-worthy COI quite frankly, and easily qualifies for posting on the COI noticeboard. I therefore changed my "vote" to a strong delete. Also, more than one editor has raised concerns that the LASIK page itself gives undue weight to opponents to the procedure. Let's present the topic as an encyclopedia and not have a page which serves as a medium to people who shout the loudest. Lesion (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to all. My name is Dean Andrew Kantis. First, if LASIK is so safe, why is there so much controversy that has surrounded it since inception? David Muller ( Avedro's Collagen Cross Linking's CEO) CEO of the infamous Summit Technologies (who created and marketed LASIK, financed Ted Kennedy's re-election campaigns, how their lasers caused permanent corneal weakening, instability, and dry eye disease. David Muller, CEO of Summit Technologies, investigated in the America Investigates Series shown here: 

Part One: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXNN65PF_HA   (10 minutes)
Part Two:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9THraSVkOs   (10 minutes)
Part Three:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_0hvMJsQyA    (10 minutes)
Part Four:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEVVXeJVL3U   (10 minutes)
Part Five:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOZS_eWRkdU  (5 minutes)
Part Six:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhSWNuXrYPg (10 minutes)
Part Seven:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pTZ7Ffw9EE (10 minutes)

Second, please hold off your (consensus) vote until you see the Dr. Oz LASIK Warning that comes out in 2 days, on 10/3/13 at 3pm central time as explained here: (this is as current of news as it gets right?) http://www.doctoroz.com/episode/undercover-lasik-surgery-investigation . Second, my apologies for trying to upload a few pictures of the logos for each of my causes. As I surf through Wikipedia, I see pictures on most pages, so I'm not sure I understand why my pictures are "off limits." But no problem. Please google my name and YouTube my name. There are hundreds if not thousands of credible references about me and my anti-LASIK causes that are backed by solid facts and scientific studies. In fact, I was the one who got Dr. Morris Waxler out in Oct. 2009, he's the ex chief of medical devices that gave the FDA Approval for LASIK surgery, and is now speaking out against LASIK saying he was "tricked and deceived" and that the LASIK industry "cooked the safety studies" to get it through the FDA approval process. (This is a medical conspiracy and people who did it need to be arrested). In fact, here's the proof on a conference call with Morris when he said "WE FUCKED UP" approving LASIK at 18:30 into it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9nXI2QNat8 . Since, he's been on MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CNN, and CBS to name just a few media venues, explaining this. His petition explained this and was submitted on Jan. 6th, 2011 to the FDA. He has not had a reply from his own FDA to date, and he won't because they too are in on it and were placed in high positions of power by the industry to watch over profits, etc. Here's his petition calling for a Criminal Investigation: http://lifeafterlasik.com/LASIK%20Morris%20FDA%20Petition%20Jan%206%202011.pdf .

Here's an 81 minute powerpoint that Dr. Waxler presented in front of 3,000 Optometrists to prevent them from referring patients to get LASIK so they understand the known long-term damages: http://www.odwire.org/forum/content/175-The-Evidence-LASIK-Makes-Healthy-Eyes-Sick

I'm so dedicated to protecting you and your families from harm, that I produced a mini-film, "In The Blink of An Eye...A LASIK PUBLIC HEALTH ADVISORY," to explain all of this so that you would be spared from this incurable, dry eye inducing, not needed surgery: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TtbxM-jUXA .

I've been interviewed over and over on tv about LASIK and how the industry lies, shown here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXzqwzQo0Oc . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQD3b-cFZdA . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BUFkWdtVP0 .

Here's my petition filed on Jan. 5th, 2007: FDA-2007-P-0116 Dean Andrew Kantis Take steps to insure the safety of Americans regarding the misuses of Lasik 01/05/07 I was sued by my own LASIK doctor for speaking the truth about his 60 LASIK lawsuits and for warning the public: http://www.dmlp.org/threats/st-george-corrective-vision-v-kantis . I could go on and on and on, but I think you get the points. My name and what I have done for FREE to expose the LASIK industry is invaluable.

My petition to the FDA was submitted on Jan. 4th, 2007, which prompted the "EMERGENCY LASIK OPHTHALMIC DEVICE PANEL DISCUSSION" in Wash, DC on April 25th,, 2008 where 20 of us paid to go to DC and speak in front of the FDA and the industry's paid ASCRS forum, in order to beg them to help us, and other victims, and to redact the FDA LASIK APPROVAL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTAHDLAwKkw .

If you had a good LASIK outcome, hurray! But please don't think that even after 3, 5, 10 years that you're in the clear. This is exactly what Dr. Waxler and Dr. Oz will be covering on his show in 2 days! People do not realize that your eyes get drier each year from this procedure touted as "safe and effective and FDA Approved." Please be open minded, thank you.

  • Comment This is not a discussion about whether or not LASIK is a safe procedure or not. This is a discussion about whether Dean Andrew Kantis is notable based on his campaign against LASIK. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep What is exactly wrong with someone telling the truth about their life? I have seen many pages on Wikipedia that are much more biased then this one. On a lighter note, This is a discussion about whether this persons page is worthy to stay on Wikipedia and somebody throws in how happy they are with your Lasik outcome in a DISCUSSION. How is that any different? It's actually worse. I'm sorry but I don't see a flash mob just a persons true story of their life. From what what I see is a few people with what seems to be a hidden agenda. You can find fault with just about any Wikipedia page page but certain people just keep pounding and pounding on this one which is the truth as I know as to what actually happened to this person. Dr. Oz might be a celebrity but like it or not he is a DOCTOR. Testifying before the FDA is not medical based evidence? My point is twofold. One if anyone can prove that anything on the page is lie or misrepresentation then show some proof of it. Certainly the article needs some editing, Mostly his personal life, but his Micro Jet Network is the truth as are his POST LASIK COMPLICATIONS. If you live anywhere near Chicagoland everyone knows what happened. Dean Andrew Kantis was one of the patients of a very disturbed Lasik doctor who is longer allowed to even be in the same room with a Excimer(Lasik) laser and because of that he became a strong advocate of Lasik patients that have been harmed. Is it biased? Maybe. Is it all the truth? Yes and he has all the references to back up what he put in the article. I see that a couple people in particular have issues with this article and yet when I look at their Wikipedia pages I see nothing of worthiness. Look at your own pages before you go after another one. You might find that they are pretty much useless in other peoples opinions and find yourself up for deletion. That is not a threat, it is just an observation. The people making the most noise have useless Wikipedia pages. The only "Flash Mob" is those people who call for its deletion. I find it worthy of Wikipedia but some of the people who are calling for a DELETE, their pages are NOT WIKIPEDIA WORTHY. The one almost put me to sleep. Should we DELETE Barack Obamas Wikipedia page because while truthful, people disagree with it? In that sense I agree with WikiDan61 wholly. Is it worthy based on Andrew Dean Kantises notability? I say Yes but also sense jealousy and hidden agendas to have it removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibco65 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Gibco65 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Nat Gertler (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with that statement. This is the first but not the last time I will comment. I have no hidden agenda and do not watch a discussion page for comments , let alone look up whether people have commented before. So what's your deal Nat? Oh comic books at age 48, never mind. The Peanuts Collection? The Sun Times which is the new National Enquirer of Chicago? I would have an issue with a real article also then.Gibco65 (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The most important thing as NatGertler points out is that user Gibco has 1 contribution in their history (this discussion). If indeed they have registered as part of the external attempt to divert this discussion, then I believe the correct term is meat puppet, but I could be wrong. Third person singular aside, respectfully Gisco, by virtue of your recent registration I suspect, you are wrong in several ways and I am going to delineate them one at a time:
  • The factual accuracy of the person's life is not disputed, it is the person's notability for their own wikipedia article that is disputed. See above discussion for more details.
  • Pointing out bias on other articles is of no consequence to this discussion. I have every faith that said articles will improve over time.
  • Any single expert's opinion is either the lowest form of evidence, or no evidence at all (depending upon what evidence scale you use) in evidence based medicine.
  • Dr Oz's opinion, who is a celebrity doctor and not an expert on LASIK, is therefore of no consequence. The only time I would consider his opinion a valid source would be on an article about celebrity doctors, which arguably is not medical content.
  • Accusing other editor's of hidden agendas is both foundless and against a core idea: WP:assume good faith. I speak for myself alone, but I want this article deleted because it is in breach of wikipedia policies, not for any other reason. People do not like it when their independent health care information is warped so it no longer represents reality. It is not a case of jealousy. See for example the Otto Placik controversy [1], a plastic surgeon who was banned for perverting wikipedia articles towards his own agenda. This (the LASIK page) is slightly different but the potential deviation from a neutral presentation of the topic is the same.
  • If you are talking about user pages when you say "nothing of worthiness", you are missing the point of user pages. There is no notability requirement before wikipedia users are granted their own page. An article in the main namespace (i.e. an encyclopedia article) is a different matter entirely. You are saying something akin to "all those insignificant people have boring facebook profiles pages, so this person should have an article in Britannica".
  • Comparison between this discussion and the USA president's article is not valid. Again I point out, this page is being disputed not for its factual accuracy, or because anyone disagrees with the anti-LASIK content, but because the person is not notable for their own page.
This whole incident has left me with a strong sense of unease at the accuracy and balance of the LASIK page. Lesion (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification sake, I will note that the complaining editor is not referring to a user page, but rather to Nat Gertler, a page about me that I did not create, and which is not relevant to this discussion (nor, should I note, is the LASIK page.) The comment on his post that he is complaining about is actually Template:Afdnewuser, which is a standard item to add after comments of new users in AFD discussions, helping other editors understand that the commenter may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia standards and practices. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Agree that this discussion should not be about LASIK or the LASIK Wikipedia article, but it is raising questions in my mind about the neutrality of said article. I started a thread on talk:LASIK#Undue_weight_given_to_adverse_effects_of_LASIK where such discussion would be more appropriate. Lesion (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meat Puppet really? Let me retort to your accusations. 1) I have been a registered user of Wikipedia for many years. 2) You have continually attacked this persons page and have more opinions that are not based on facts on this discussion by far. When nobody comments you write another one. You have FOUR negative comments in a row that are without merit. You are obviously heavily biased and yet you comment "Any single expert's opinion is either the lowest form of evidence, or no evidence at all". So then basically in simplest terms Jonas Salk is of no consequence to others. Albert Einstein, I could go on and on. 3) While I do not personally like Dr. Oz, he is an M.D. Are you? 4) The fact that you attacked my comments within an hour of posting does hint of hidden agendas. I was just stating my opinions which evidently I don't have a right to and you come after me like a shark comes after a bleeding seal. 5) You figured out whose page I was talking about Lesion. 6) Who made you two the Wikipedia police? Basically who lets you decide who is notable or not? Yourself? If that's the case I suggest you get a hobby. 7) For Nat: "Wikipedians who like Buffy"? Are you serious? You claim to be an editor and really Buffy and Angel? Lets get real. That is the page that should be deleted. It is useless. This isn't Facebook. I am sorry for not understanding that you did not put "Gibco65 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Nat Gertler (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)". Usually when someone's name is on a comment it just makes sense to assume that they put it there. 8) Lesion you should have a strong sense of unease. Wikipedia is just that. Wikipedia. It is an immediate "F" if quoted in a thesis or dissertation. It is to be taken with a grain of salt yet you have an inflated sense of self worth and the same for Wikipedia. Basically you do not like what this Dean Andrew Kantis is saying, that's all. It's plain and simple. 9) If you lived in Chicago and know what went on here and the Lasik "doctor" involved, you might have a little different opinion. How about many blinded because of deranged doctor? Really all you have to have to perform Lasik is an MD and a weekend of training. How about 50+ lawsuits? How about the guy who wrote the article is one? How about you are somehow related to said doctor because he even had the nerve to sue the people he blinded who sued him. Your unease over this makes me suspicious. 10) There you go again, starting a new thread because you are heavily biased against this persons or anyone else's opinions. Your hubris is disturbing.Gibco65 (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gibco65: I was not denying I was the one who put the template on your post, merely noting that what I put was a standard template used to help the other editors navigate the discussion, and not some form of attack on you. As a general guideline, I would suggest you review Wikipedia:AFD#Contributing to AfD discussions, as that contains useful information on what is likely to be productive in these discussions. If you have concerns about what is on my user page, or just wish to continue to belittle me, may I suggest that that would be more appropriate at the talk page you'll find linked to at the end of this message; it does not serve to move forward the Article For Deletion discussion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gibco, I suspect that your the account was never used for editing until you were summoned here from an external recruitment. meat puppet is not an insult, it is the term for people who do this. Further evidence of your new arrival on Wikipedia is demonstrated by SHOUTING and making personal attacks.
  • Conveying the tonality of a message is difficult in words alone. The tone tends to be assumed by the reader. For example, you interpret my behavior as like a "shark coming after a bleeding seal" and having hidden agendas. I can assure you that my words could also be read as calm, reasoned, polite and patient towards someone who is shouting and unfamiliar with how to behave on Wikipedia. It is all a matter of perspective. I believe because people are not face to face on the internet, there is a tendency for each side to paste on to the other the traits of their most hated enemy, when in fact they are nothing of the sort. I write on many medical topics, I have no interest in hiding controversy against LASIK, but only the to the extent that is realistic to the topic on a global basis. This is not the Chicago Wikipedia, this is the English Wikipedia. It is for the entire planet.
  • I would point out that making 4 comments in a row is not a valid reading. Every comment is marked with a time stamp, and it can be seen that all those comments were made within minutes of each other. They were after thoughts as I came across more information that I felt was relevant to the discussion.
  • I am not biased, again I think this is something you have assumed. I want a neutral and accurate presentation of topics.
  • I ask you to truly ask yourself if you think your opinion is mainstream when you accuse others of having bias and then come out with slogans such as "How about many blinded because of deranged doctor?" When we edit Wikipedia, we leave our personal opinions and experience behind, and everything is based on reliable sources. We present topics in neutral point of view, giving due weight to each side of the argument.
  • If Albert Einstein could be quoted with coming up with his opinions on a surgical procedure, then yes this would not be of any consequence. Evidence-based medicine is about hard facts and statistics, not personal opinion.
  • It is not me who decides what is notable and what is not. Try reading this policy for an answer to this: WP:BIO
  • I do not have an inflated sense of self worth for Wikipedia. Look at some of the best medical content on wikipedia, GAs and FAs. They are actually better than most publications because they have been honed over many years by many different authors. They use on the highest quality sources, they present no personal opinion but instead present a realistic world view. One day most of our content will be like that. Instead I think it is you who have a deflated sense of worth for Wikipedia, again by virtue of your lack of editing history here. This is a common public perception of Wikipedia. I suspect you think it is entirely appropriate to present topics in a way that soothes your own world view. This is not the case.
  • I started the thread at the LASIK talk page because another editor agreed with me that it presented the article with undue weight. This discussion should not be about this. Let's keep focused on the issue here, that the subject of this bio article does not meet notability policy: WP:BIO. Lesion (talk) 11:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did call me a meat puppet and how can that possibly not be considered a personal attack? Because Wikipedia says is not an insult does not make it true. It was a blatant insult that's intentions were to get a rise out of me, plain and simple. I was prevented from posting a reply to your little rant. You seem biased to me and so does Nat. That being said, lets let the people decide if it is noteworthy instead of you two alone. I was not recruited, I have been using Wikipedia for about six years and did hear about this on the internet. Einstein was not supposed to be in my response but after following the instructions for posting it took 11 tries to post. That's childish and blatant censorship. By the time my comment went through it was the original unedited rough draft. Einstein was not supposed to be in the answer to your comment but Salk was. All I ask is this. Instead of you and Nat Gertler deciding on this, let some other non biased editors decide. You both have seem to have made up your minds a long time ago so either let someone impartial decide and recuse yourselves or you can continue with your excuse of being falsely accused of bias and not hurling insults. Meat puppet is an insult. I would also like to see this discussion a neutral and accurate presentation of topics. The truth of the matter is has not been. Maybe its the Chicago in me but not letting me post my comments and calling me names is not neutral. You can argue that to you pass out. I think the article warrants consideration, its notable, that's my opinion and I am sticking to it. It is my opinion and my opinion alone. You and Nat can come up with 101 excuses as to you are impartial but your comments speak for themselves. See: Common Sense. Let all the editors decide, this is childish and undermines Wikipedia. That's really all I want. I am no meat puppet nor have been recruited. I think the article with revision is worthy of Wikipedia. Now lets see if I am allowed to post this.Gibco65 (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you took that as an insult then all I can say is that it was not meant to be. Again I ask you to consider that I do not have horns coming out of my head, and I do not have shares in a LASIK company or something. Re. your comments not getting posted, this may have been an edit conflict, and they can be confusing to deal with. It is not censorship, it's because of how the wiki software works. It will only keep one version of any page at a time. It just means that someone else has changed the page after you started to edit it and before you saved your edit. All the instructions for how to deal with edit conflicts are on the page that comes up, but it is not exactly easy to understand the first time you encounter them. I think it might move the discussion forwards if you stated exactly why you think this article is notable, or to counter the arguments posed above suggesting that it is not. To summarize all the reasons so far cited to delete the article, these are:
To clarify for Gibco65: neither Lesion nor I will be making the final decision on whether this page gets deleted; the closure of the discussion will come from another editor (likely but not always an administrator). That we (like most of the editors making their voices heard here) believe that the article should be deleted is not reason for us to be excluded from the discussion; an articles-for-deletion process would be rather weak if only people against deletion could be included. You can learn more about how an Article For Deletion decision is made at WP:CLOSEAFD I do recommend that you review that entire page (WP:AFD), as it covers this full process and gives you some tips on how you might state your positions more effectively. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I did take it as an insult but the thing that started my attitude was the fact it was pointed out that Gibco65 : has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Evidently it might be the rules per say but it was edited on to comment exactly 20 minutes after I posted. To me that meant Nat was watching this AFD at the time. I personally did not think it was relevant hence my feeling that there was bias. Let me perfectly honest it regards to last night and the BS that transpired. I was not asked to write anything by anyone. I wrote what I wrote because it was my honest opinion. I did stumble upon it on the internet. I know that it meets the following criteria:

  • WP:BIO The guy does own a jet timeshare company and the family part is usually part of any article. He does champion the anti-Lasik cause. His one event was a tragedy that a lot of people up here are familiar with but because of that event he has a website, testified against in front of the FDA and a host of other things. Basically I think that meets the burden of WP:BIO, he is notable for more then one event.
  • WP:RS. His secondary source is the person who approved Lasik in the USA in the first place, Morris Waxler and the FDA hearing which many spoke at. It changed the way the FDA handles adverse outcomes.
  • WP:COATRACK I can't argue that one. He is one of the loudest voices in the anti-Lasik movement.
  • soapbox: I think that is the same as WP:COATRACK. That should be addressed with an an edit. Not everyone is savvy about writing an article.
  • WP:Advocacy While a rule really most articles advocate something. Wikipedia is far from neutral in that regard. I mean really that one is pretty vague and if followed most articles would be deleted.
  • WP:Conflicts of interest (medicine) If that's the case I really don't when the user was edited in the past or why. Was it yesterday, last month or year? Does it pertain to this article? Basically if yes then OK it does not meet the criteria. I do not see that in this article. Yes he does go a little off and the Post LASIK complications section does need some editing.

I Emailed Wikipedia as to how to have my voice heard on this matter. They Emailed me back and told me how. I did this on my own. I wrote my reasons why the article is worthy and it seemed to me that since there were already snide comments, that they were acceptable. Then Bam within 20 minutes "Gibco65 : has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD." Does that really make difference? At sometime everybody has to make a first contribution. It came from an editor and I really thought you were editors to help Wikipedia meet its guidelines and not to be outright biased. I was wrong and respect your right to vote and then add your comments. You don't have to be biased or rude about it though and that is the way you came across. Basically if the article needs editing to meet guidelines, you are editors. Help by offering your expertise in editing. I did have an edit conflict but think about it; if you had just butted heads with editors and all of a sudden you could not comment, you would think the same. I would not butt heads with some with horns. Nat Gertler : I did not realize that pointing out that someone has never commented before was a Wikipedia rule. To me it seemed like you were smarmy and just had to point out that I was commenting for the first time on something I feel is Wikipedia worthy. Yes I have strong feelings about this just as you guys do. Its just it seemed to me that you being in a position to offer advice on to edit the article in question was pretty much what I had read on the internet many times. Most of the editors are strongly biased and what happened last night let me to believe that. I apologize for getting extremely personal in my attacks against you, I was out of line. I was called a meat puppet. To me that was an outright insult but now I realize that it is phrase that editors use. For the record, I do not like puppets and eat very little meat. Seriously I know them as basically a punk band. To be called a meat puppet was akin to being called a punk. In closing I think the article with some editing should stay. That is my opinion and mine alone.Gibco65 (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the trouble is, if we strip away all the non independent sources, then there is arguably not much left to base a biography article on. The sources need also be reliable, and discuss the individual in a degree of length, not just mention them in passing. Sources like these need to be removed imo:

So what we are left with is:

TLDR summary-- Dean Andrew Kantis is mostly known in specific circles for his opposition to LASIK. His notability to a general audience is limited to media coverage of a petition to the FDA. The article as it currently stands is poorly sourced, and there are no reliable, independent sources which discuss him in with significant coverage. A few sentences on the LASIK page would be appropriate, stating that a petition was submitted to the FDA, and with the background "an Anti-LASIK campaigner". I have not looked in detail at the LASIK page, but there appears to be undue weight given to anti-LASIK content. The creator of this page also has edited the LASIK page, which may indicate sourcing problems there too. Lesion (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright last time I'm chiming in on this AfD. If the sources were changed to reflect only reliable sources then would that make the AfD in question worthy of keeping with some other edits? In all honesty it's far from a perfect article. Many things need to be edited and clarified. If someone provided reliable sources and edited WP:COATRACK and soapbox would this article be worthy? This is more of a question then a statement. It passes the smell test to a great degree but as I pointed out is far from perfect. It meets most guidelines and does need some more reputable sources to back it up. Some of the websites mentioned are reliable. It is matter of proving them to be so. It is hard to prove some sites because of the secretive nature of the owners of the sites. They have been sued for a lot of money and it has cost them big money to set up and keep said websites. Some of the other websites mentioned are very legitimate sites, the people go into great details about their bad Lasik outcomes but they are very forthcoming about it. http://www.mikeslasikhell.com is his own independent site. http://www.helpstoplasik.com/ is Morris Waxlers own website. While that does not actually make any website more credible that you have listed, there has been a huge lawsuit that has gone back and forth between people who had horrible life changing outcomes and a representative of Refractive Surgeons. The Refractive Surgeons have a multi million dollar war chest to quash these sites and have done so. The people who had legitimate sites were forced to take them down in the latest legal battle. That legal battle still ensues. Why is this relevant? I feel it is relevant because Kantis would have more reliable sources but when a federal judge tells you to shut down your website, you do it. This happened within the last 6 months and is still an ongoing case. He would have many more websites as credible references had this article been written a year ago. Basically that leaves us with one thing. Is he notable for more then one event? Yes with some more proof IMO yes. Sure he is an anti-Lasik person but he has a little more then what is a story of his anti-Lasik life. His article is very badly written and I still feel that if someone took the time to go over it he would be noteworthy , hence worthy of an article on his life. It does need a lot work though so I can see your point. This article should have written properly in the first place and the it would just need some clarifications. I point out that the subject did not write it and seems a little confused as to how to improve it. You Tube is not going to be a reliable source and in his reply to this there were a bunch of You Tube links.

While I personally cannot stand "celebrity doctors" there are many who have their own Wikipedia pages. A lot of self serving pages: I know this falls under WP:OSE but I will show an example however irrelevant it might be. Dan Reinstein: He is known for one thing; he was slightly involved in the development of the now obsolete Artemis scanner. The rest of his article is basically fluff and is mostly a covert ad for The London Vision Clinic which he owns. His involvement with Carl Zeiss Meditec is overstated but verifiable. He may have 97 Peer related publications but they are mostly from other people with his comments added on. This is verifiable hence proper but not necessary fully truthful. Laser blended vision is another name for mono vision and his jazz performances consist of a talented jazz band playing, him playing sax, getting out of breath and then leaning on things as other musicians play. I have seen this first hand. That does not meet the burden of proof for AfD but I cannot site YouTube as a reference. To me it seems that verifiability is much more important then the truth as I read it. Does he plays saxophone? Is laser blended vision the same as mono vision? Yes and it is verifiable. Does he play well IMO or for a whole piece? No, also verifiable but left out of his article. While this falls under a totally different category I am basically stating the complete opposite side of this discussion but one that has been brought up before. Celebrity doctors. This is not so much a comment as to why one article is better then another. It goes to whether an article is Noteworthy yet in the previous article nobody calls for AfD. It just that it appears that Reinsteins article is professionally written but is the same thing just opposite sides. If you pick through it, the references should be thoroughly checked and so should most of what is stated in the article. Is it most of it verifiable? Questionable. Is it truthful? No because of the old lying through omission thing but all it has to meet is verifiability and worthiness. Is this a legitimate point under Wikipedia rules? Perhaps. Why? because one article was written with half truths professionally by someone who knows Wikipedia guidelines and the one that is up for AfD was not. References to papers that are published and then someone throws their name on them IMO are not credible sources but are verifiable. Very much like the Dr. Oz point brought up. He did not do any the research for his TV show on Lasik. He did present it. Because of his celebrity status does that make him an expert on Lasik or was it self serving? If you look at his page it might also be considered for AfD. Regarding of whether an apple can kill you or whether homosexuals can be "cured", I am disturbed as to the truthfulness of these things and while one can be verified and the other is utter nonsense IMO can that statement be verified or is it just junk science?

  • So basically my summary is to have the article in this discussion for AfD rewritten to the standards of Wikipedia. It is worthy but not well written and no insult to the author is implied. If I wrote it , it would be worse. That is my new opinion after studying Wikipedia guidelines. On the other hand quite a few articles should be edited. I am too new to this to do this and biased to a point. If I knew what I was doing I would edit some articles I have read. In time I will but not yet, I need to learn a bit more. I'm trying. Gibco65 (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I believe Gibco has improperly summarized the gist of this discussion. If the article were salvageable, then it would be salvaged. I believe the problem is that there are not sufficient independent unbiased sources on which to build the article in the first place. Mr Kantis is simply not a notable person according to the standards of Wikipedia, and does not merit an article, no matter how well or poorly written. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparison with other articles, whether Dan Reinstein or any other page, is not relevant to this discussion. Each article needs to stand on its own merits when determining if it is notable. There are many problems with many other wikipedia pages, this is no reason to abandon the standards. Agree in Wikipedialand, verifiability is everything, but truthfulness is another matter. Wikipedia is based on sources, whilst "The Truth"TM is subjective. Lesion (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION: All right one last one. I was not just making a statement based on comparison, I am trying to figure out what is suitability for notability and clarification. It was an example and was brought up earlier in the discussion, Dr. Oz. I'm am just making a comment here that is really just a question. Dr Oz. He claims that homosexuality is a disease based on pseudoscience on Wikipedia, even though this has been pointed out as a Controversy. What proof or truth is there to that? That goes toward verification. Controversy if pointed out constitutes verification even though it's not a truthful statement? His FDA claim about apple juice is another. Because the FDA says that the level of arsenic were above the amount allowed in water but not juice make his claim unverifiable. So what the FDA and consumer reports says is verifiable how? That is my question. The whole verifiability thing confuses me and really is my question. My question is what passes the "smell test" for verification. I know that truth is out but doesn't verification have to be based on truthfulness? It is a question and not a statement. The comparison was to see what passed the "smell" test and what didn't. I'm trying to learn. My comparison was based on two factors, one that Reinstein claims to be a leading authority on the correction of complications of laser eye surgery and has an article on Wikipedia so it is on the complete opposite end of the this discussion. Who made that statement? Many refractive surgeons would strongly disagree, I know a few. Now just because I said that does that meet verification or would I have to have said doctors publish their disagreement and then reference it? I would say he is very pro Lasik yet his article has some pretty sketchy verifications as per what I just wrote but yet passes the "smell" test hence is OK for Wikipedia. Dr. Oz who has been mentioned in this AfD. Same thing, some wild things said but no real evidence to back it up. What passes the "smell test"? You cannot have complete verification without truthfulness. That is my question as it pertains to this. Comparison to other articles was to constitute verification. I really don't know how you can have verification without truth. I ask you Lesion to help me with this being that you are much more familiar with this and especially on medical issues. While this really has nothing to do with this discussion please help me understand my dilemma. In medicine others cannot verify your results if you are not truthful or in any science for that matter. I need to know how something can be verified with a lie if you will. Truthfulness has to be considered in verification or the article in is invalid.

  • WikiDan61 I respect your opinion as you are entitled to it. I think it needs to be rewritten properly and you feel that he is not notable. Both sides have been heard. Gibco65 (talk) 03:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gibco, I've posted a reply to your Q on your talk page since I felt my reply was not directly relevant to this AfD. Lesion (talk) 08:20, 5 October 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dean_Andrew_Kantis&oldid=1140104063"