Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Society of Consultant Pharmacists Foundation


 * 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. Keilana | Parlez ici 02:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

American Society of Consultant Pharmacists Foundation

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails CORP, and WP:RS  Fa ll e n   A n  g el  00:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete G12 as copyvio of this, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I removed the copyvio stuff and ended up with a one sentence sub-stub for an organization whose presence I can't independently verify. This seems to fail WP:ORG. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've struck out my !vote for now and will wait for further comment; I still think it's thin on reliable sources, however. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Existence of the organization is easily verified. Medscape is quite reputable. — Epastore (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not think that re-stating an organization's mission statement is a copyright violation (perhaps it should be in quotes?). If it is, then the mission paragraph can be deleted without deleting the entire article. This organization runs a lot of programs, and should at least have some time as a stub to see if it can grow. — Epastore (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Its not suppose to be a article at all then.  Fa ll e n   A n  g el  00:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed the copyrighted text, leaving a little bit of a stub. As I said, the article does deserve to be a stub... Please give it more than a few seconds to see if it can grow. — Epastore (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, WP:ORG.  Fa ll e n   A n  g el  00:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep at least for now. I really do not understand why people leap to delete articles like this. It looks very much like an organisation that is notable, so it should be given a chance and not AfD'ed minutes after creation. Professional associations are generally notable. It needs to be expanded and sourced. --Bduke (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It was started due to WP:RS, WP:ORG and WP:COPYVIO.  Fa ll e n   A n  g el  01:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Copyvio is only a deletion problem if all of it is a copyvio so nothing is left after removing it. Notability is not a reason for deletion if it is asserted and I think it was here. After a very short time all of your concerns have been addressed. --Bduke (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What? Like I said thats why it was started like that, it still doesent meet WP:RS WP:ORG standards.  Fa ll e n   A n  g el  02:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As previously noted, reliable sources are plentiful. Among those thousands of search results, early results include articles about this organization on the websites of Medscape, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and American Foundation for the Blind. That seems to meet both standards. — Epastore (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   --  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  C ) 04:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as it does seems to be notable in its field. Serious need for expansion though.... KTC (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with American Society of Consultant Pharmacists, which needs major POV editing on its own. Besides multitudes of distributed press releases, I see only a handful of references to the foundation/association. I would say the reason most of these orgs get tagged for deletion is because they present themselves as consumer champions instead of professional associations. Flowanda | Talk 20:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - There is a paucity of reliable sources - All I see are primary references. This doesn't meet WP:CORP so it fails notability guidelines.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 20:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would also suggest taking a look at Consultant pharmacist, which seems completely written according to this association's marketing objectives. Flowanda | Talk 20:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, spam. Blast Ulna (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete As not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:22, 5 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.