Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Occupational Therapy 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   no consensus. Opinion divided on whether importance within the subject's field can make up for a lack of sourcing. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  15:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

American Occupational Therapy Association

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Organisation does not meet WP:ORG - the coverage in GNews Archive mainly consists of Press Releases, and "xyz is a member of AOTA" type coverage --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —--  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable. It's the major national association for a significant branch of medicine. It is nearly 100 years old and has 40,000 members. When it issues a policy position or health recommendation, that position gets reported, and not just by reprinting of press releases; for example, this, this, this. --MelanieN (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  —MelanieN (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * While I've found many sources about their health recommendations, sources on the organization itself are less obvious.  talks about AOTA's role in encouraging critical thinking about the profession, but even that seems kind of weak to me.  If we had to rely on independent sources, I'm not sure that we could write even two sentences about the organization.  I wonder whether it might make more sense to merge it into American Journal of Occupational Therapy.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep This is not the sort of organization that gets news reports. Notable and historic organization. Dloh  cierekim  01:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: can you find examples that the AOTA has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? How does this organisation meet WP:N? --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Incidently, I have looked at 's sources above (well, the summaries, as I do not have a subscription with highbeam), and I agree with what says - all the articles I could find were about the recommendations they give, but didn't say anything about the organisation itself. "This is not the sort of organization that gets news reports" appears to be correct - but being historic is not a criteria for inclusion - and I can't find evidence of notability as Wikipedia defines it. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 07:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:ORG. Lacks any reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Appears to violate WP:OR. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The major national professional association in its professional field, which in practice = notability    DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 26 August 2010 (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.