Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges


 * 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. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable, content fork MrBill3 (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Notability, content and sources

The information in the lead of this article is not supported by the references given except for the name of the institution being present and linked to on the National Association of Advisors for the Health Professions which does not qualify as a reliable source or third party source. One reference points to the NCAAM page "Naturopathy: An Introduction" there is zero mention of the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges (AANMC) on this web page. Another reference points to Department of Education page "Accreditation in the United States: Specialized Accrediting Agencies" again zero mention of the AANMC.

The list of accredited schools is referenced by the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education (CNME) website which does list the accredited schools but says nothing about the AANMC or any of these schools being members. The second source for this is a map from the AANMC's own website a primary, interested, non reliable source.

The material under the list (without a section heading) is referenced by a link to the FAQ page on the AANMC's website clearly not an independent, reliable or third party source. Another source is a post by the President of the AANMC appearing on the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians website again clearly not independent, reliable or third party. The final reference is to an article in The Huffington Post which again makes zero mention of the AANMC. The material about the AANMC contributing significantly to licensing, recognition as first professional degree and increasing federal financial aid is not supported by the self published source and is contradicted on the Dept. of Ed. page (no Title IV eligibility). Regardless such a claim requires third party reliable sources. Likewise the work of the AANMC claimed needs proper sourcing.

This article contains no support for the notability of it's subject. There is barely any support for the existence of this organization and none of it from independent, reliable, third party sources. If the unsourced material and material which is supported only by self published or interested parties were removed the article would not have any content.

The information in this article that can be supported (if there is any) belongs as material in the article Naturopathic medical school in North America. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. A Google search shows tons of hits for this organization at many unaffiliated reliable sources. There seems to be substantial evidence for the existence of the organization, their work cited by peers and so on. See WP:NGO for criteria. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Green Cardamom can you post some of these unaffiliated reliable sources? Everything I see is not from unaffiliated sources. Nor am I seeing anything from what would clearly qualify as a reliable source. Please also consider posting some of them to the talk page of the article so interested editors can use them to properly source the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well let's pick one, there are so many. Montana State University provides information about AANMC. According to WP:NGO #2, "Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources". Granted this is just an "info and activities" page, but there are dozens more like it. There are also journal articles, citations. Here's a Bill introduced in VA, State of Conn., NIH . You take exception to claims made in the article and lacking sources, fine. But that's different from nominating it for deletion. The question of AfD is if could exist as a 2-sentence stub, merely exist at all. I think there's enough to show it could pass as a notable WP:NGO because so many reliable institutions reference it as being a reliable organization on the subject of accredited naturopathic medical colleges. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. If the article is improved I will change my opinion. I still think it is probably best merged into Naturopathic medical school in North America if not deleted. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges is a nonprofit that represents the seven accredited naturopathic medical colleges in the United States and Canada. It is not itself a naturopathic medical school so it wouldn't make sense to merge the article under such a heading. The AANMC acts as an advocate for accredited naturopathic medical education at the state and federal level and by helping prospective students understand the distinction between naturopathic medical colleges whose curriculum is accredited by the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education, a Department of Education-approved accrediting agency - and other programs that are not accredited at the federal level. This distinction is important as graduates of an accredited school may apply for a license to practice medicine in a licensed state or province once they have passed the Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Examinations (NPLEX) a professional licensing exam administered by the North American Board of Naturopathic Examiners (NABNE). Licensed practitioners may also qualify for insurance coverage and in some states may serve as primary care physicians. Links to AANMC can be found on the CNME website: http://www.cnme.org/links.html, the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians' website: http://www.naturopathic.org/content.asp?pl=16&sl=56&contentid=56; the homepage of the NPLEX website: https://www.nabne.org/home/eligibility-requirements/; all the accredited naturopathic medical school websites, and many others. AANMC is a reputable, legitimate organization and the article should be taken off the articles for deletion page. User: Claretis  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claretis (talk • contribs) 17:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * — Claretis (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)




 * An article about naturopathic medical schools in North America seems exactly the place material about an organization of medical schools belongs. The content of an article on the subject of naturopathic med schools is not just the schools themselves that would be a list. All of your statements seem like they would fit well within the scope of an article about naturopathic med schools. Much of what you state has little to do with the AANMC itself, CNME, DOE, NPLEX, NABNE, licensing etc. the role of the AANMC is only as a representative of a group of schools. Being linked to on websites is not significant to meeting the criteria for an article on Wikipedia. An independent third party source that verifies what you state about the AANMC is what is needed for an article on Wikipedia. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, "If the article is improved I will change my opinion" is not acceptable. Keep on that basis alone. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Striking through comment + !vote. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify what was meant when I thanked Green cardamom and stated if the article was changed my opinion would change. I did not mean to imply that I had checked the references and found they established notability. I meant if they did and were included in the article it would change my opinion. I was not saying the article needs cleanup but that it needs sources to support notability and that the article was based primarily on first party, primary, involved sources that are self published. This is not appropriate for an article in WP per WP:Verifiability an article should not be based primarily on such sources. Providing a set of links to possible sources does not establish that they are reliable sources or explain what they state about the subject. If that were done the article would contain some of the information that might lead me to change my opinion. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Is "Keep on that basis alone" an argument in favor of the article or simply a tit-for-tat vote to counteract an opinion you feel is invalid? Deletion is not assessed by vote-counting alone but by the valid arguments with relevance to Wikipedia Policy (see the information box at the top). Your opinion will have more weight if you back it up with valid reasons as will the opinion you opposed. An invalid argument won't count in favor of either. Hope this helps you to state your case in a way that supports your vote.

The article as it stands is not establishing notability via WP:RS. The policy WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP seems to only be relevant for an article needing cleanup which meets the other pre-requisites (principally notability). This is not about clean-up to me. This is merely a matter of whether notability is established in the Lead Section (or anywhere - I'll be charitable as the article could be reorganised). I don't think this is the case right now (and reference 2 looks like a definition of naturopathy, not a citation for the text preceding the citation). The question is not about quality of the article's content, but whether the subject matter is within the scope of an encyclopedia. I'm not in a position to judge notability from my own knowledge. I need the sources, just as the WP Policies demand them. I came here via a WikiProject's Article Alerts page and have never heard of the organization despite a moderate degree of interest in Alt Med albeit that I'm not from North America, though I follow what goes on there almost as closely as the rest of the English-speaking world.

It is a basic prerequisite of any Wikipedia article to establish notability in the Lead, citing multiple third-party reliable sources with a fairly substantial depth of coverage (and I'd be inclined to be lenient on the depth of coverage if there are plenty of sources). See policies WP:NOTE and particularly WP:ORG.

I've put the article on my Watchlist and will review any improvement in establishing notability to merit its own article. As it stands I see no evidence that this organization meets either of those policies and would have to support Deletion. It is perfectly reasonable to reappraise my opinion in the light of new evidence of notability (i.e. a rewritten Lead Section establishing notability with good citations), so as a matter of urgency I personally believe that notability must be established to be sure the article is not deleted. If it cannot be, I don't see a great loss in deleting it. I'd suggest anyone with a personal enthusiasm for restoring it could copy the article source to a text file on their own computer (or online storage space) so that in the event of deletion they could recreate the article once they find sources that establish notability. If you believe you've established notability either in the live article or a draft in your User area, feel free to contact me via my User Talk page and I'll happily review it and make suggestions.Dynamicimanyd (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The nominator asked for WP:RS. Green Cardamon provided a sufficient number, the nominator thanked him and said if they were added if the article was improved, he'd change his opinion. If he doesn't contest that these are WP:RS it makes no difference whether they're currently in the article or not. Also, why are you asking editors to contact you personally on your user talk page for you to 'review and make suggestions'? The discussion is happening here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In my nomination I explained that the article was lacking RS. The set of links provided does not give the article RS, nor establish the links as RS, nor explain the content in the links as it establishes notability or provides content that would satisfy the requirements for an encyclopedic article. Examining the links provided, Montana State University does not seem to state anything about the subject of the article (information) other than it has a website with a list of accredited schools, in fact in regards to the activities of the subject it states that, "Applications are through individal schools" this does not establish any kind of notability nor seem to be the sort of material called for as material to base an article on. The first journal article has an explicit disclaimer that it is solely the opinion of the author thus not meeting criteria as a journal article and the journal itself seems questionable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The other journal article (story about a one month rotation at a naturopathic college) lists the AANMC as a source for the number of states regulating naturopathy. This is not providing information about the AANMC and use as a reference for a single fact does not establish notability. The VA proposed law seems to refer to the AANMC as accrediting schools and having residency requirements. The AANMC is not a recognized accrediting agency, no mention of residency requirements apppears elsewhere, was this perhaps an error the author meaning to refer to the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education? An important reason to cite passed laws rather than proposed ones. I added the CT legislation to the article as I felt it provided a single high quality reference about the AANMC but that alone does not make for an encyclopedia article. The link identified as NIH leads to a journal article with one sentence about the AANMC which cites the AANMC itself. None of these satisfy notability in my opinion.
 * An article on WP should be about a notable subject (not established), should not be based primarily on first party, non independent or self published material (this article is).
 * Another item mentioned in my nomination was content fork please see, List of accredited schools of naturopathic medicine in North America and Naturopathic medical school in North America. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

 Delete. This organization has been mentioned in a fair number of reliable sources, but it fails the "significant coverage" prong of the general notability guideline. I've searched around and checked out the sources linked earlier in the discussion, but all I've seen is passing mentions, citations, and primary sources. The sources Green Cardamom found seem fairly representative, so I'll address some of them individually:
 * : This is just a directory entry listing some very generic admissions requirements ("completed application", "transcripts", and so on) for unnamed schools. I see no evidence of editorial control—not everything hosted on a .edu domain is a reliable source.
 * : This is a news article from an e-journal that, at least on the surface, appears somewhat reliable. But it's not about the AANMC, which in only mentioned once in passing as an example of a member of the umbrella organization that is the subject of the article.
 * : This a peer-reviewed article indexed in PubMed, so it's plenty reliable. But the AANMC isn't even mentioned in the text of the article—it's just in one of the citations, and that's definitely not significant coverage.
 * : Same as above—it's reliable, but a passing mention in a citation does nothing to establish notability.
 * Reliable source, but it's just a one-sentence passing mention.
 * This is the text of a Connecticut Department of Public Health regulation. It's really a primary source (rather than a piece of scholarship or journalism), so it doesn't really establish any notability in my book. And even if it was a good secondary source, the AANMC only gets (deja vu) a passing mention as an example of a continuing education provider.
 * Similar to above, this is a legislative bill (and a failed one at that), and the AANMC is only mentioned in passing, not discussed.

To take the sources you brought up, Shawn in Montreal, a link is definitely a passing mention rather than a discussion as well. I think we need something a lot stronger to start establishing notability. I grant you that these links help establish that the AANMC probably exists, but then again so does my bicycle.

I could go on, but all the other mentions of the AANMC I saw when searching were just as weak. I'm happy to revise my opinion if someone can point out stronger sources, but for the moment I don't think anyone has. —Neil 19:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Notice of this AfD discussion has been posted to WikiProjects Skepticism and Alternative Medicine here and here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2013 (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.