Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education


 * 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The result was Keep (nomination withdrawn) Non-admin closure. Whpq (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I speedied this as a blatant copyright violation, which it was. User removed the speedy and advert tag and cleaned up the text enough that it's no longer a blatant copy/paste. However I still see no evidence that it meets WP:ORG. The results are primarily press releases, and notes on other orgs that certified by ACCME. The article's "sources" are the org's own website. Travellingcari (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Merge I still don't think it warrants an independent article, but a good case has been made below for a merge. Travellingcari (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC) A google search for the acronym ACCME will show mentions on numerous websites, including those of universities/medical schools, and even in some peer-reviewed medical journals. If this isn't enough for WP:ORG, then perhaps it should be subsumed under the Continuing Medical Education (CME) page, maybe as a United States section. --Conor (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. You're joking, right? This is the primary body of its type in the USA as even casual research will show. Try this search: . It's pretty definitive.Halfmast (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Duh! The body that accredits CDC and Johns Hopkins just might be notable :) Jellogirl (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment no I wasn't kidding. The organizations that it accredits are notable, but I don't see any coverage of the organization that indicates that it is notable on its own right. I don't think that being an accrediting body passes WP:ORG, but that's why I brought it here for discussion. Even though it's no longer a copyright violation, it's still little more than an overview of what the org does, not an encyclopedic article and where are the sources that make it encyclopedic? Primarily secondary, independent sources? I didn't find anything other than "X is accredited by the ACCME". There's a discussion on the talk page about whether merging into the larger article would cover it, which I would definitely support failing to find the above mentioned sources. Travellingcari (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "it's still little more than an overview of what the org does" is not an argument for deletion. It's an argument for improvement.Jellogirl (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * it's an argument for deletion/merge when there don't appear to be any independent reputable sources from which to get that information Travellingcari (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A quick search on Google Scholar gives over 9,000 hits, most of which are highly-reputable secondary sources detailing the fact that the ACCME is not just a notable body, but one of the most important parts of the US medical system. Jellogirl (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ACCME has abundant secondary source coverage available. It is an integral part of the U.S. medical establishment. I looked at cleaning up ACCME before, but considered it over my head. The whole family of medical education articles needs cleanup and independent sourcing. The articles need improvement from competent editors, not deletion. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. As I'm not a member of wikipedia I understand can't vote, but as an MD I do have a comment: Are you people all nuts? The ACCME is one of the most important and respected medical organizations in the United States. What's next for deletion? The AMA? According to the British Medical Journal the ACCME is the "main medical education accrediting body in the United States." I found that online reference in about ten seconds! . 212.71.37.74 (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Nominator's Google News search got only 9 ghits because nom did not select all dates or search for "ACCME". • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Submitter's edit history contains virtually no recent contributions to WP, just deletion nominations, many of which are questionable. See subs contributiuons and draw your own conclusions. Halfmast (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Travellingcari (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply not fair at all and completely untrue, I've contributed substantially, look back to all dates. Recent significant contributions: 2002 European floods, Indian Pacific, The Ghan, Backpacking, and Good Samaritan Hospital. I've withdrawn nominations where people have proven me wrong and made a very good case for some which have ended up deleted. Travellingcari (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn Not selecting all dates was an honest mistake, but the vast majority still is a lot of PR stuff. I still think it's a better candidate for merge since I don't see encyclopedic content possible here, but I'm going to withdraw and focus my efforts elsewhere. I don't think the topic is over anyone's head but rather beyond the scope of what many want to tackle. I still agree with the merge comments and resent the untrue comments above Travellingcari (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge While the ACCME is clearly important and loosely fits the WP:ORG criteria, I reckon there is actually very little usable information from the searches that would make for a subtantial article. Given that Continuing Medical Education is clearly a bona fide article (and one that could do with fleshing out), I reckon that a merge would be most appropriate.--Conor (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Based on what the previous comment said since "the ACCME is clearly important and loosely fits the WP:ORG criteria" then its a keep. We just need to look for more sources. There will be in the appropriate journals. It's distinct from the general subject--CME applies to other countries besides this one. DGG (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.