Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges (2nd nomination)

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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges

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

Article appears to fail notability per WP:ORG, as there is not substantial coverage of the subject nor moderate coverage in multiple independent sources. Any mention of the group seems to be only passing mentions of the group's naturopathic advocacy written from a perspective critical of pseudoscience, i.e., [1], [2], and [3] (which are not cited in the WP article). On the other hand, a high beam search turned up a Townsend Letter article [4], but this doesn't seem like it covers the subject in any detail, and the publication fully embraces fringe topics. Delta13C (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources listed in the first AfD (in the first Keep vote) and per WP:NGO. These sources are significant enough (in number and type) to show notability. The nom requests "substantial coverage" but WP:GNG says significant coverage. Significant does not mean substantial, it means significant to show notability. Also the nom's focus on peusudo science theory as a reason to delete is incorrect because the article is about an NGO, not a fringe theory or theorist. What an NGO advocates is unrelated to the notability of the NGO itself. -- GreenC 04:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My focus on substantial comes from looking at WP:ORGDEPTH. Could you please explain how those sources cited in the first keep vote of the first AfD are significant enough to indicate notability based on nonspecific descriptions of Google search results? As I stated in the AfD nomination, there are not sources that provide significant coverage. I reread through WP:NGO, and I do not agree that this article meets notability as there is no evidence of significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the organization. A vast majority of search result hits which seem to be cited by those who support keeping the article are from other naturopathic sources/organizations/individuals. Thus, the notability of the article is not widespread. Delta13C (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well we disagree about the quality of the sources. -- GreenC 16:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. This internal organization of a fringe medical movement is discussed in detail only in their fringe sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to reconcile "only fringe sources" when there have been state government laws passed to allow Naturopath doctors accredited by AANMC to practice medicine.[5][6][7] AANMC is the primary accreditation organization for naturopathic doctors; regardless of Wikipedia's ideas about fringe are legally considered accredited doctors for certain conditions. -- GreenC 15:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That information about AANMC being the accreditation agency for naturopathic programs is incorrect. The Council on Naturopathic Medical Education (CNME) is the official accreditation agency that approves programs [8]. The AANMC is an advocacy group that represents the naturopathic colleges. It also appears to approve some continuing education credits for naturopaths. Delta13C (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What the [State of Virgina says: "a naturopathic medical school accredited by the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges". -- GreenC 01:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is very curious that authors of this particular Virgina House Resolution made the error of stating that the AANMC accredits naturopathic colleges. It is important to note that naturopaths are not licensed in Virginia, and that the Resolution you are citing never became law and was opposed by the Medical Society of Virginia [9]. Delta13C (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naturopaths are licensed by at least 16 states. In VA they've introduced at least 5 bills over the years, the one in question was the 4th. I don't know where things currently stand in VA but I imagine they keep trying. -- GreenC 05:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The independent sources do not rise above the level of directory entries. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I take strong issue with the claim that the sources that are being used to establish notability are significant enough for us to cross the threshold required at WP:GNG. "Significance" means that the sources should speak to the notability of the subject at face value. None of the sources actually do that. See WP:Notability vs. prominence. jps (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2016 (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.