Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Frantz

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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Frantz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This page doesn't reach WP:NACADEMIC, nor other notability criteria. The facts aren't in dispute, as Frantz is doubtless one of the main clinical contributors to a range of clinical trials. No named chair; impact of research is minimal (Scopus H-index 13), and that is obtained almost exclusively from mid-author publications. The most cited of their 1st-author publications seems to be Franz et al, 1989 (American Journal of Ophthalmology, 1989, 108(5), pp. 524–528), with 26 citations. The English is clear; the references are clear, and the article creator has declared the nature of their contact with Frantz in an edit summary here. Klbrain (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Medicine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep – Meets WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG Notability Criteria

• This is a case where the subject’s contributions to medical science, rather than pure citation metrics, establish notability. I also have presented the argument against the criticism about being a mid-tier author. If any specific sections are seen as non-encyclopedic or promotional, I am happy to review and refine them to align with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Editora89119 (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)— Editora89119 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Editora89119 It's worth noting for future editors that you are the creator of this article. You also are a WP:SPA editor, so it's worth mentioning that if you have a connection to Jonathan Frantz, you are required to disclose a Conflict of Interest per our Conflict of interest policy.  GuardianH  22:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I disclosed this previously. It's pretty simple: I went to his office and had LASIK. He did not perform it though. Another doctor performed the procedure. I started a conversation with him and learned about Dr. Frantz, who I had seen on local news. He told me about Dr Frantz living in Louisiana where I once lived and studied. It was fascinating to me because I am connected to the medical world-- my husband is a cardiologist. I then talked to my husband about LASIK and how it was pioneered, and he helped me research in medical journals. I simply found it a fascinating subject. I have been a bit determined on this because once I start something I like to finish. I love this process and want to start and edit more articles. It's like I've found my calling. For the record, I have never even met Dr. Frantz. I have only seen him on TV and in magazines. Editora89119 (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)— Editora89119 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment I have some sympathy with those who publish academic work but are not based in a university. It seems to me that we provide a record for posterity of quite a lot of very nondescript professors who've got themselves into a named chair and merely sat in it doing a bit of teaching, while academics who move out into industry and health care can influence lives dramatically, publish, and still be considered unworthy of a record here. Unfortunately I can't justify keeping Frantz based on Wikipedia's policies, but his article is a better read than those of quite a few distinguished chief editors who've done no notable research. Elemimele (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Elemimele:

  You comments are thoughtful and helpful because I believe there is a larger concern at play.

  If Wikipedia is now biased against private practices, that will have a chilling effect, greatly limiting the information available on Wikipedia and in fact making it an irrelevant source of information. Medical advancements and innovations often come from practitioners who are outside of traditional university systems, and excluding them from documentation would create an incomplete and skewed representation of history.

If Frantz is rejected under WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG, McDonald’s page should face the same scrutiny. Otherwise, there is a clear double standard being applied to articles on ophthalmologists. Editora89119 (talk) 10:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)— Editora89119 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As a general note, you are making a WP:WHATABOUTX argument that is generally not accepted. "This article has [X], so then you must also have [X] here" is not a good argument (not to mention it is also a textbook fallacy).  GuardianH  16:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clarify that my intent was not to make that argument, and I apologize if it came across that way. My goal is to understand why an article I found fascinating and put significant effort into would be rejected, despite precedent suggesting that similar standards have not been consistently applied. The article I wrote includes citations from independent academic papers as well as news sources, and based on precedent, it appears to meet or even exceed the standards set by a comparable article on this individual’s colleague. If my work is ultimately deleted, the biggest question I’ll be left with is: Why this article and not the one on Marguerite McDonald? Please help. I genuinely want to understand. Editora89119 (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. (Repeat this comment to distinguish it from the drop-down bar) A cursory search of any significant coverage of this subject in independent secondary sources reveals very little besides sources connected to the subject directly. He seems to be an accomplished surgeon locally, but by no means appears to warrant national attention or meets the WP:GNG in terms of coverage. There is a local news Florida Weekly profile and a 2008 lawsuit implicating him of medical malpractice. It certainly doesn't help that the article as it is currently written reads like a WP:PROMOTION promotional showcase and personal resume.  GuardianH  22:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG and BLPSOURCES: vastly over-reliant on primary sources (see WP:PTS) rather than independent, secondary literature. Fails WP:NACADAMIC: no indication in third-party RS that his research has had a significant impact; has not received a prestigious award; is not a member of a national society; no indication in third-party RS that his research has had a significant impact in higher education; not appointed to a named chair; has not held a high level position; has not had an impact outside academia, according to RS; and has not edited a major journal. Fails WP:ANYBIO: has not received or been nominated for a significant honor; RS does not indicate that his work has made a recognized contribution; and does not have an entry in a major biographical dictionary. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not "whataboutism"—it’s about ensuring equal enforcement of policy. If Dr. Frantz is being deleted for lacking independent secondary sources, why does Marguerite McDonald’s page remain when it relies on trade publications, industry sources, and local media?  

  Unfortunately, this is the kind of bias Wikipedia sometimes gets accused of --

  favoring university-affiliated academics while dismissing private-sector pioneers.

  He played a documented role in FDA-approved treatments that have changed millions of lives. He was her colleague.

  If his article is removed under WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG, then every similar article must face the same scrutiny.

  If Wikipedia excludes major medical contributors just because they aren’t tied to academia, we are distorting history.

  Policy should be applied consistently. If there are concerns about neutrality, I’m happy to address them—but deleting this article while others remain undermines Wikipedia’s credibility.

  Can anyone explain? I really loved this process and want to do more. He's the first person I picked because my husband is in the medical field (who helped me) and I had read about him. I'm really just trying to understand. Editora89119 (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This has been asked and answered above, twice. Just because you do not believe that the answer applies doesn't mean it has to be re-explained. I warned you against bludgeoning, and you continued. You have lost access to this discussion as it's time to let other voices be heard. Star Mississippi 12:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Editora89119, I do agree with Star Mississippi's rationale for blocking you from this discussion—as you've been warned both here and at my talkpage, your discussion style on this page is becoming actively disruptive. If there's a comment here to which you feel you really need to reply, then post the proposed comment in your thread at my talkpage and I (or one of the other people watching my talkpage) will copy it across to this page if it's not something that's likely to get you in trouble. ‑ Iridescent 15:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I only found one g-scholar article, and it was the one listed (twice) as a source with 9 or 10 authors. I failed to find him in one of the source articles, and another I could not access. The news sources are short and local. The FDA application name-checks him as one of many dozens of doctors who tested the medication. The claims in the article are exaggerated, so PROMO and likely COI. Lamona (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. I would usually argue that a Q&A interview could count toward notability if it was framed by biographical information about the person which had arguably been reviewed / vetted / fact-checked by the interviewer or their editor(s), but the Opthalmology Management interview has no such information. The problem with the Naple Daily News "It's Your Business column" is that it's purely promotional along the lines ofDr. Jonathan Frantz said his office is taking cataract surgery to a new level with the VERION Image Guided System. Frantz said the technology is a part of the area's only full cataract refractive suite. It reads like "I don't really understand what this guy does, but he claims he's 'taking things to a new level' and is doing something unique, and I'm making it very clear that this is all coming from him; I personally am not responsible for the veracity of this information." The only useful factual information there is the location of his offices. The WINK article is potentially the strongest. It says,That’s where ophthalmologist Dr. Frantz comes into the picture. Frantz now holds the distinction of being the first surgeon in Southwest Florida to implant the PanOptix lens. The article tells us that this PanOptix lens was recently approved by the FDA, which is promising, and it also interviews a patient, so there is some validation here that this procedure actually worked (at least once). And while the source is a local TV news station, their website does accept correction requests, so if there was another surgeon in Southwest Florida who was actually the first, they probably would have heard about it from the competitor or from PanOptix. But it simply isn't enough as it's only one piece and very local. Hunting for additional coverage on Dr. Frantz in Newspapers.com, we find that most of the hits are paid advertisements with his picture or "paid public service" advertorials like this one; the most exciting piece I found was "Dispelling Myths About Modern Cataract Surgery: An Interview with Jonathan M. Frantz, MD, FACS", a Q&A interview that includes a bit of preamble, but the promotional tone is a tip-off that something isn't quite right and then you realize this is part of an advertising supplement in the News-Press in Fort Myers, Florida. It turns out that Dr. Frantz has also written at least one guest column on eye care for the News-Press which is syndicated on the USA Today Network, which sounds somewhat promising until you realize no other newspapers appear to have picked up that column (plus it's authored by Dr. Frantz so doesn't actually count as a secondary source in the first place). At this point you think, maybe there really is no additional significant coverage about Dr. Jonathan M. Frantz to be found in independent secondary sources, and then bingo, we find "State complaint accuses eye doctor of needless surgery". On the first page, we find out that Dr. Frantz sued his former business partner Dr. David C. Brown, who"calls Dr. Jonathan M. Frantz's suit an absurd campaign by a disgruntled man who wanted the thriving Eye Centers for himself"; on the second page, "DOCTOR: Local practice goes back more than 24 years", we find out that Dr. Frantz's suit was actually a countersuit in response to Dr. Brown's original lawsuit listing specific allegations against Dr. Frantz and that back in 1995,Frantz also [faced] a Board of Medicine complaint for running an allegedly misleading ad while working with Brown. Frantz left the 40,000-square-foot Eye Centers in June and started his own 2,000-square-foot practice, Florida Eye Health. Whether he left voluntarily depends on whom you ask. The article goes on and on about how Dr. Frantz insisted that Dr. Brown had promised to turn over his Eye Centers practice to him after three years, etc. I wasn't able to easily find what happened to these law suits, but in any case, since it is coverage in an independent, reliable secondary source about Frantz – arguably the strongest we have found to date – we probably should include some of the biographical information contained in the article and mention the dispute in his article at least briefly, while trying to maintain a neutral and balanced tone per WP:NPOV. At this point, though, I think the kindest thing to do is to delete this article, because if it is kept, it could become very difficult to keep this type of information out and/or delete it in the future, per WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and more to the point, WP:ABOUTME. As multiple editors have already argued, what little independent coverage there is appears to be mostly local to Southwestern Florida anyway. And if it's more favorable, promotional coverage you are after, there are other websites and media outlets that are much better suited for that than Wikipedia, which actually has strict policies against promotional content per WP:PROMOTION. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Following Cielquiparle's reasoning. Gedaali (talk) 08:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cielquiparle. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2025 (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.