Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American College for Advancement in Medicine


 * 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 delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

American College for Advancement in Medicine

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fail to pass GNG no independent, reliable coverage. Sonofstar (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt and vinegar. Aside from an FTC ruling against them, the main source listed was their supposed accreditation from ACCME.  At first, I was thinking that I might have to make a very reluctant keep vote, because that accreditation would be enough to demonstrate that they were a legitimate medical specialty society.  The thing is, I've worked for a medical subspecialty society that provided CME courses and credits (I did not work in that specific department, though), and I know from experience that it is a pretty serious endeavor.  How does a quack organization (and they are a quack organization) get accredited for CME?  The answer is that they are not.  They may have been accredited back in 2006, according to the archived file listed.  However, a check of ACCME's list of accredited CME providers current as of January 2021 does not list the American College for Advancement in Medicine.  And yes, I checked manually after doing a quick ctrl-F search just to be sure.  2006 was back when so-called "alternative medicine" was making a last-gasp effort at legitimate recognition, as the wave of evidence-based medicine was pushing them out.  Thus the one thing that they appear to be notable for, providing CME, is simply not true.  A check of their website provides a "white paper" on COVID-19 that appears to be an anti-vaxxer manifesto, one that leaves me in a state of professional rage. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Completely revamp so it's not like an advertisement and it's prominently explained how it is a pseudomedical pseudoprofessional organization, or else delete. ScienceFlyer (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's an option as well, and since SBM is already an accepted MEDRS, it would be pretty clear that rules like Due Weight would ensure that we make it clear that they're a bunch of quacks. Still, my preference would be just not to have an article at all, due to the risk that True Believers might change it back over time, and their lack of accreditation helps with that argument.  On the other hand, if we can do a good job of documenting this group's scam and BS, I could definitely see an argument for the utility of having such an article.  I would accept either option so long as the article accurately reflects the nature of this group.  I'm glad that SBM has covered them, otherwise I'd have had to go the long route to demonstrate all the boxes that they fail to check to be a real medical specialty society, vis no CME accreditation, no peer-reviewed journal, no seat at the RUC, no seat at AMA/CPT, no recognized fellows and distinguished fellows, etc.  That was one reason why I was hesitant to go that route. Hyperion35 (talk) 23:37, 16 April 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.