Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors

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 no consensus, default to keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Blatant advertising. OutlawSpark (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Nominator is a blocked sockpuppet. Fences&Windows 02:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internationally useful, supportive non-profit organization. Keep: primary author--EMedMD 00:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emedmd (talk • contribs) — Emedmd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Weak Keep I'm not sure about notability, but I do think the promotional tone could be removed.RadManCF (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, no refs except their own website. Other comparable organizations, such as the Association of Family Medicine Residency Directors, do not have a Wikipedia page. ==MelanieN (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Keep This group is non-profit, educates and is accessed by many medical students. Individual residency programs already have wiki pages. (eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCLA/VA_Multicampus_PM&R_Residency_Program) Informational, not advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srudkin (talk • contribs) 16:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC) — Srudkin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"'Keep'" This group is a non profit that provides guidance to both medical students, residents, and junior faculty. Most importantly, CORD is the non-profit body of EM residency directors, it is not trying to recruit members because most if not all residency programs are members of the organization. Instead, it is important that wikipedia is used to disseminate this information because all interested candidates in emergency medicine should have EM trained physicians use the CORD letter of recommendation when applying for residency training. Most allopathic medical students know this, but many osteopathic and international medicine graduates do not realize this. -- pinbor1 — Pinbor1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - If you review the article history, you will see that not only is it promotional in nature, but has in fact been copied directly from the organisation's web site. I can find no reliable sources writing about the organisation and as such, it fails to meet notability criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – nomination by sock of de facto banned user Pickbothmanlol. MuZemike 04:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand the rationale for the "keep" votes above. We judge articles by Wikepedia standards, not by whether we admire the subject. The article does not even assert notability, much less demonstrate it. The only reference is the organization's own website. And the identity of the nominator should be irrelevant; judge the article on its merits (or lack of same). This one could almost qualify for speedy delete under A7, "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant."--MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Point of Clarification Can I ask why the AARP is considered a notable organization but CORD would not be considered one? Is it just a matter of getting additional citations. Is it just a matter of beefing up the subject matter? i.e. if there was citation of Emergency Medicine regarding CORD would that make it notable. For example the various EM organizations cite CORD, and CORD is an organizational body that puts out consensus statements regarding the education of emergency medicine residents. just looking for clarification---pinbor1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinbor1 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC) — Pinbor1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"Can I ask why the AARP is considered a notable organization but CORD would not be considered one?" Are you serious? AARP has 40 million members and is considered the second largest organization in the United States, surpassed only by the Roman Catholic Church. In contrast, how many directors of Emergency Medicine residencies are there? in the country A few dozen? Maybe as many as a hundred? A Google search for AAPR returns 6 million hits, including 3700 from Google News. A Google search for the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors includes 6400 hits, including NONE from Google News. Try not to reduce your arguments to absurdity.-MelanieN (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Pinbor1, this discussion really is all about the reliable sources. Wikipedia only writes about organizations that have been "noticed" in the media. If you can provide a list of (for example) newspaper and magazine articles about the organization, then that would be extremely helpful in determining notability. A feature-length article entirely about the organization is obviously much, much more valuable than a single sentence that names the organization in passing, but if you can tell us whatever you know, we can see whether it adds up to enough. The actual standards are at WP:ORG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 02:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've relisted due to the issues with sockpuppets and SPAs. Fences&Windows 02:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 02:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 02:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is a reasonably good stub at the moment. Notability concerns don't seem compelling to me. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is plenty of evidence, as can be seen in the Google Books results, that this organization is notable, and even has a small scandal in its history. Promotional language seems to be gone. Those editors who feel that the article is too short or doesn't tell the whole story, please add information to the article. I'll watchlist it to make sure none of the negative sourced information is removed. Abductive (reasoning) 04:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google search reveals lots of hits with respect to this organization. Current version is likely salvagable and does not have a spam feel to it. Passes WP:NOTABILITY RP459 (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2009 (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.