Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spondylitis Association of America

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 redirect to Ankylosing spondylitis. Any content worth merging is still available in he article history. Randykitty (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spondylitis Association of America[edit]

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

Although this may not actually be as blatantly promtional as others, I'm concerned about the almost virtually non-existent good solid coverage. I added a sentence about Rico Brogna being a spokesman but that's the best I could add to my best abilities. My searches were here, here, here, here, here and here. This is an interesting subject and I hope someone familiar with this can improve and move this past its current state. Unfortunately, if a move elsewhere is better, there's no target as this is an orphan unless it's mentioned at the AS article. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as proba bly the result of undeclared paid editing. What's diagnostic is the statement of origin & motivation: " Her goal was to get word out about ankylosing spondylitis and help support others with this disease". This is a particularly meaningless example, and nobody would use it who wasn't trying to write according to a bad pattern. DGG ( talk ) 23:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree about paid editing. I can't imagine anyone paying this editor Special:Contributions/Sackofrice, who seems to be the major contributor. I think this is just some well meaning soul trying to improve an article, but based solely on the SAA website. --Derek Andrews (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that good references are hard to find, but judging by the number of times their publications are referenced, they are obviously a respected organization. I think a better way forward would be to tag the article for improvement of content and sources. Sadly, I think that references from mainstream media will only be common for organizations that are mired in controversy or some other big story.--Derek Andrews (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I have since made some improvements regarding the tone of the article and added a few more independent references. I will keep plugging away at it. Derek Andrews (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in limited form into a section in Ankylosing spondylitis, or delete. Not convinced by the coverage. Sandstein 17:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - The organization is somewhat notable, but I don't think that they have received (or are likely to receive) the kind of reliable source coverage that we really need here. I feel inclined to just delete this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2015 (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.