Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Association of Nutritional Consultants


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

American Association of Nutritional Consultants

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article is a WP:COATRACK for a complaint that the organization allows members to join without checking whether they have special qualifications as nutritional consultants. It is my understanding that professional associations don't necessarily have an obligation to check whether their members have accredited qualifications or not, and membership in a professional society should not be construed as an accreditation in itself. Professional associations are typically more concerned with activities like publishing journals, sending out newsletters to their members, organizing conferences, giving awards to accomplished people, offering insurance discount programs, and lobbying the government on behalf of their members. They might offer certification programs, but certification and membership are two different things. The whole article is currently devoted to the qualification checking question for membership, especially for pet animal applicants (which only exist because a few people want to demonstrate the lack of restrictions on membership). No special awards were given to the animals in question – only association memberships. The membership fees of professional associations often support the cost of the organization overhead and the publications that are sent to the members. Allowing unqualified people to become dues-paying members is not necessarily a big problem, as long as other people don't interpret the membership as something different from what it is (and as long as the members don't act like it is something different from what it is). See also. Regardless of whether this organization has a good reputation or not (and I suppose it doesn't), it does not seem very notable. There are many organizations that basically have no verified requirements for membership other than the payment of dues. (I am not sure whether to consider the Quackwatch and Wordpress references to be reliable sources, but all of the cited sources seem to be primarily about the lack of checking of qualifications for membership rather than about the organization itself.) —&#8239;BarrelProof (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —&#8239;BarrelProof (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. —&#8239;BarrelProof (talk) 01:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —&#8239;BarrelProof (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets GNG. Any content issues should be discussed on the article's talk page, where I will be pleased to defend the reliability of the sources used (none of which are "Wordpress"). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the reference to http://www.skeptics.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/theskeptic/2000/4.pdf. —&#8239;BarrelProof (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed you were. It's not a "Wordpress reference", though, is it? It's PDF copy of a printed publication, with an ISSN, a named (and notable) editor, and a large team of editorial consultants, most of whom have PhDs. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I had assumed that if I found "Wordpress" in the pathname, it was coming from a Wordpress site (and I had not noticed that the term was not part of the domain name). That assumption may have been incorrect. —&#8239;BarrelProof (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * About the Quackwatch article, I was just referred to WP:RSP by a comment on the AANC article talk page. WP:RSP says that articles on Quackwatch by Stephen Barrett (like the one cited in this article) are generally reliable but should be considered self-published and "should not be used as a source of information on other living persons". I don't necessarily see a problem with citing that source in this article, since what is referenced is commentary about the organization rather than any particular person. Although the Quackwatch article does make statements about particular named people, the Wikipedia article does not reference those aspects of the Quackwatch article. —&#8239;BarrelProof (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep marginally. It's a dodgy organisation alright, but notable for being dodgy as RS demonstrates. Alexbrn (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I researched news sources and have added to the article a New York Times article referencing the association’s lack of credibility and a press release from a major university touting a new nursing dean who was affiliated with the association. The organization is without a doubt of dubious credibility, but it does appear to meet the WP:GNG standards for notability. ABT021 (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have removed the discussion of the press release about the nursing dean as WP:OR, since we do not have a secondary source reporting that this happened or is notable – we have only our own observation that someone's background description included a claimed qualification from the association. Incidentally, I think the article has a disproportionate dependency on Ben Goldacre's criticism of Gillian McKeith. The NYT piece that you added was more of that same theme. —&#8239;BarrelProof (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We dont remove articles because the subjects are dodgy, nor, indeed, because the articles are poor. Rathfelder (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are not the reasons for my suggestion of deletion. The reason is lack of sufficient notability and WP:COATRACK. Much of the coverage is really just stemming from Ben Goldacre's criticism of Gillian McKeith rather than coverage of this organization itself. The only extensive coverage of the organization itself is the Quackwatch source, which is self-published as described above. —&#8239;BarrelProof (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per aboveRajuiu (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2021 (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.