Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Registry for Diagnostic Medical Sonography


 * 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  Nakon  16:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

American Registry for Diagnostic Medical Sonography
The result was delete. Chaser - T 23:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD relisted per Deletion review/Log/2008 April 12. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced article that reads like a press release, and is POV towards making the company look good. Also it has notability issues βcommand 19:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * delete advertisement, no claims of encyclopedic notability. Pete.Hurd 07:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions.   —Espresso Addict 10:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete reads like an ad, no assertation of notablilty ff m  17:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but revise to sound less like and advertisement and add additional sources (I typed in the phrase on dogpile.com and it seems that it gets more than just a couple hits). Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC
 * Delete Advertisement! There is no background information or research about the topic. References only point to the company's page or friendly sites. Text is generic and marketing slang e.g.: "The EDTFs survey job functions and practices in various specialties [...]" or "ARDMS is the only sonography certification organization to be accredited by the International Organization of Standards"
 * Keep, this organization is notable because medical proffessionals in the United States can not legally practice Diagnostic Medical Sonograph without being licenced through this organization. The article needs to be re-written but the organization is definitely notable.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. has some notability around the practice of "keepsake ultrasounds" ... there are several articles (I posted an initial external link to a Seattle PI article) that discusses/refers to their credentialing. The article also needs some heavy pruning; I think it reads less like an ad and more like trying to find something to say in order to fill up the white space. Flowanda | Talk 09:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete due to failing to meet WP:ORG. If it wasn't for the Keep votes above I would have speedied this under CSD:A7 by now. Stifle (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and rewrite. Seems to meet WP:ORG if it is an important licensing organization.Divinediscourse (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite per Google News hits . --SmashvilleBONK! 13:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs to be rewritten for WP:NPOV, not deleted. Plvekamp (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Article not showing subject meeting WP:CORP and not having sufficient independent coverage sources. If this article is to kept, it needs a complete rewrite to part the Red(link) Sea. The comments above mentioning that the article reads like an advertisement are quite valid. B.Wind (talk) 04:06, 24 April 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.