Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Association of Sleep Technologists

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Association of Sleep Technologists[edit]

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

None of the provided references are significant coverage, and if that's the best that can be done (I couldn't find much in my search either), then this organization is not notable. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 00:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I did find a couple of books on sleep and sleep technology that briefly mention the organization, but overall the reliable sourcing seems slim. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am at a complete loss why this organization and the American Board of Sleep Medicine are up for deletion, as both are very much involved in the practice of sleep studies and sleep medicine. Does every single article about these in a professional sleep or respiratory journal have to be referenced in the articles? Bill Pollard (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you then find significant coverage of the organization in reliable sources? Because right now, the sources are primary or only give the briefest of mentions. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I looked at Sleep Review magazine's article search engine , at http://www.sleepreviewmag.com/hidn-search/?searchword=american%20board%20of%20sleep%20medicine&catid[0]=558&catid[1]=113&catid[2]=343&catid[3]=116&catid[4]=119&catid[5]=562&catid[6]=563&catid[7]=174&limitstart=0 , and looked for 'American Board of Sleep Medicine.' This search came up with 385 articles. Granted only a fourth of them had information about the Board or the American Association of Sleep Technologists. Many of these articles covered significant sleep medicine and sleep study topics. I did not even bother to do a similar search in the Advance for Respiratory Care & Sleep Medicine magazine or the AARC Times, which is in the American Association for Respiratory Care website. It just can't be argued these two entities have no significant coverage. I also put this comment in the AfD discussion of the American Board of Sleep Medicine. Bill Pollard (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:42 for a definition of "significant". Multiple passing mentions != significant coverage. Significant coverage is on a source-by-source basis, just as reliability and independence are. Having 100 somewhat-kinda-reliable-ish-abit sources does not equal a reliable source. Nor does having 100 passing mentions equal significant coverage.

Keep Sleep Review magazine calls it "the premier membership association" for sleep professionals (sleep technologists).[1] Confirmed in another source[2] and very many other sources. Clearly notable organization with the sleep studies field. Keep per WP:NGO, #1 national scope and #2 coverage of activities in multiple reliable independent sources. The depth of coverage isn't just word count, it's significance, and this is said to be a significant professional organization per the sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please view my comments today in the AfD discussion about the American Board of Sleep Medicine. These discussions are related and my comments further clarify these discussions. Bill Pollard (talk) 10:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't follow what you're trying to say in relation to this AfD. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Green Cardamom: He wishes to claim that hundreds of passing mentions add up to a few significant coverage instances, but that's simply not what is meant by significant coverage, which specifically states that passing mentions are not significant. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 02:59, 15 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never said such a silly thing about using dozens of passing references to be equivalent to using several significant references, as is stated above. Of the numerous references in Sleep Review probably only 20 have significant coverage of this topic. I performed an article search in RT magazine and Advance for Respiratory Care & Sleep Medicine and found a handful of articles in each with significant coverage. I found some in AARC Times, as well, but unfortunately one has to have membership in the American Association for Respiratory Care to access the articles; this tends to invalidate using sources there, as the public cannot access them. I suggest anyone evaluating the merits of this subject do article searches in the mazagines I noted and actually read a bit of articles that show more than passing mentions of this organization. Bill Pollard (talk) 12:27, 15 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 23 September 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.