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. Michig (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morris Waxler (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 entry created by a paid editor to create anti-LASIK content and advocacy on Wikipedia: [1] Lesion (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; part of a paid POV-pushing campaign. I would, however, respectfully suggest that Lesion has the wrong elance link (although the same editor was paid). A more relevant link is here: [2] bobrayner (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry. I suppose we should not delete it purely for this reason, but the individual is not notable for their own bio article per original nomination too... Lesion (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with Lesion and Bobrayner. I had originally AFD'ed the Waxler article when it first arrived based on the fact that he is not independently notable apart from the somewhat newsworthy LASIK controversy. There is already a section in the LASIK article about the surrounding controversy; publishing articles on each opponent of LASIK gives that controversy undue weight. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per Lesion and WikiDan61.The Subject fails WP:GNG and another WP:COATRACK and was in the news solely for his views on Lasik surgery it did generate WP:Ghits for it but that does not make him notable.This article is part of Paid POV pushing [3].Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's an advertisement (of the negative variety). The Wikipedia doesn't accept advertisements. Non-notable person, article created entirely and solely for the benefit of commercial interests and with no intent or or effect of improving Wikipedia coverage of the matter -- quite the opposite actually. Delete. Herostratus (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete promotional WP:COATRACK. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Maybe I am missing something here, but the subject seems to be a researcher with a legitimate record [4]. I'm not sure it is enough to pass WP:PROF though: h-index=8, most cited pub with 164 cites. I don't think the advocacy is grounds for deletion.--Eric Yurken (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy alone is not the reason for deletion.He will clearly not pass WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think he might be notable as WP:PROF--usually anyone with cites for a single article over 100 is considered notable here, tho it will take further analysis. He is also the coauthor of a book, Optical radiation and visual health , published by the reputable publisher CRC Press. But better to throw this out and start over: it's advocacy. DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, regrettably. He may well be notable but (even after deleting the soapbox anti-lasik section) there doesn't seem to be any salvageable content here — the advocacy goes down to the level of the selection of sources used even for seemingly neutral facts about his career. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Advocacy. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Yes, this is advocacy and this article should be deleted. In the original AfD I favored merger and was not aware of the disgraceful black-hat character of this article. Coretheapple (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment other articles created by this article's creator need to be looked at. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, and his/her socks[5] Coretheapple (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per DGG and WP:TNT - while he may be notable, this isn't an article, it's a LinkedIn page. Bearian (talk) 16:38, 31 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.