Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Sleep Apnea Association

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 keep. —Darkwind (talk) 07:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Sleep Apnea Association[edit]

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

It is claimed that "loads" of reliable sources can be found - I must be looking in the wrong place. I haven't found more than a passing mention in articles about other things. That doesn't meet "significant coverage" that is required. Regardless, the article as it stands reads like what should be on their website, not in an encyclopedia article. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 15:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Google Scholar and Google Books results linked above demonstrate that this association is frequently cited and/or recommended as a resource in academic sources, the totality of which is significant. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see tons of mentions and citations. No significant coverage. Please link some here if you find some. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 16:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You appear to have ignored the final clause in my comment above. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:18, 13 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. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 22:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- if it is found to be notable and kept, the article needs a lot of work. There is only one instance of inline citation (for the lead) and the rest of the article is unreferenced. Per the nomination the language at times is not suitable. The "partner organizations" and EL sections also seem rather unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a link farm for charities. Lesion (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly agree with that, but this discussion is about whether this is a notable topic, not the current content of the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the article absolutely factors into the decision whether to delete. May have appeared like I was being lazy not to search for sources myself, but my internet is being crazy slow today ... so I offered a "comment" rather than "delete". Lesion (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Again, the same as with the American Association of Sleep Technologists, a search of Sleep Review magazine's website, finds 387 articles, many with significant coverage of this organization. Bill Pollard (talk) 11:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is voted to be kept, I will also get valid references placed into this article. This is one in which I had no part writing, unlike the other two now under scrutiny. Bill Pollard (talk) 01:33, 11 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) 04:56, 14 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.