Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Schools in North America


 * 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. W.marsh 21:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Schools in North America

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A "list of six" schools of which only two have articles. No context, content. If need be that's what categories are for. These schools are based in Naturopathic medicine, which is an area of contested claims/cures. As the article stands now, its not worth keeping. I added the notability tag, but it was removed within hours and no amendments made. The Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges does not appear to be approved by the United States Department of Education as an accreditor. So this is basically just a org of six schools. Fails WP:CORP. Arbustoo 21:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Accredited by whom exactly? This article seeks to give a veneer of professional respectability to yet another brand of psuedo-science.  Such claims are inherently misleading and, in the case of medicine, actively dangerous. Nick mallory 03:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: These appear to be schools accredited by agencies recognized by the US Dept of Education, which is generally the criterion to refer to a school as "accredited". MastCell Talk 19:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * He asked by whom. It doesn't say. Arbustoo 23:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It says now. Alansohn 21:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per all above. According to the Department of Education, accreditation by the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education "does not enable the entities it accredits to establish eligibility to participate in Title IV programs."  Anville 15:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply All four of the US schools are accredited by regional accreditation agencies -- with multiple sources provided -- which would establish eligibility to participate in Title IV programs. Alansohn 21:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There are only three degrees in the US that allows a person to be a primary care provider or physician. MD, DO and ND. There are articles for the allopathic schools and osteopathic schools. You have to be uninformed or biased to brand our medicine as pseudo-science seeing that our program is heavily science-based and accredited first professional by the US dept of Ed. The Federal Title IV school code for NCNM is B07624. . If you read this page on Title IV information, you will see that the American Psychological Association, Committee on Accreditation has the same financial aid status as we do. Also of great importance is that fact that there are associations who claim to be accrediting bodies for other types of naturopathic education who are not recognized by the USDOE. It is important that people looking for accredited naturopathic schools can find this information.--Travisthurston 17:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This user created the article and is personally connected to one of the two schools listed with an article. Arbustoo 23:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I performed a Wikipedia search for other "List of accredited..." articles and there are several. There are also several "List of unaccredited..." I really don't get the point of list articles in general as opposed to simple categorization; except that categorization is a black-or-white thing, where lists can provide some of the grey details. I certainly think this list/article could be expanded upon. Discussion of the kind of accreditation these schools have individually and collectively would be a bonus. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This vote was requested here. Arbustoo 23:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 *  Delete  (see below) because of notability concerns. I have nothing against the idea, just the timing. A list with only two entries that have met Wikipedia's notability requirements is hardly enough for a list. First establish the notability of the other schools, then make the list. The following is my rule of thumb to reduce misuse of lists: "Eligibility requirements: If they aren't notable enough to have an article here at Wikipedia, they may not be eligible for inclusion here. Only include those with articles, so write the article first. Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion or advertising." To avoid the risk of the list title being blocked from future use, I suggest voluntarily withdrawing the list, moving it to user space, writing the articles, and then reestablishing the more fully developed list. It should be relatively easy to do this. -- Fyslee/talk 19:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Lean toward weak keep. I'm in agreement with Fyslee about the fact that the schools on the list should have at least stubs demonstrating their notability. However, I think this is a reasonable list, in that it provides useful, notable information. I'd like to see the text expanded, though, to specify exactly who has accredited the schools, and a brief description of why accreditation is meaningful. That said, these are respectable organizations which should be commended for going through the hoops necessary for accreditation (separating themselves from the truly "dangerous" (see above) degree granters out there) - particularly as there are quite a few fly-by-night programs out there. MastCell Talk 19:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment1) This vote was solicited. Shouldn't the list then be about the accreditation group that accredits these "schools"? Arbustoo 23:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep on the conditions that the good advice provided by MastCell is followed. -- Fyslee/talk 20:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The creator of the article, Travisthurston (voted above), solicited for votes from people sympathic to this questionable "medicine." Levine2112, ATurnerPhD, Dematt, MastCell, andJim Butler. Travisthurston is personally tied one of these schools. Arbustoo 23:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: True, and perhaps I should have known better and ignored it or mentioned it. However, if you check my editing history, I've generally been pretty hard on promoters of unproven medical ideas and systems, so I was a little surprised to be solicited. I've never been accused of being sympathetic to naturopathy or other alt-med systems before :) My opinion is what it is; I'll leave it up to the closing admin to decide how much weight to accord it, given that it was indeed solicited. Perhaps it should be discounted or de-weighted on that basis. MastCell Talk 23:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I also think that as editors in good standing, we can assume good faith here and recognize that our votes and comments aren't dependent on our personal views on medicine, but rather on the policies and precedents of Wikipedia. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It would have been nice for all those who came to the AFD to mention they were asked by the creator of the article. But yes, policy is important. How does the article currently meet WP:CORP? Arbustoo 02:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The article would meet WP:CORP if there are secondary sources out there not just discussion these institutions separately, but collectively in general or the accreditation organization(s) or process as well. Perhaps this article should not be limited though to just North America. If there are accredited naturopathic medical schools on other continents, including those in an article such as this would only lend itself more to the article's notability. -- Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 17:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * KeepI am fairly new to editing, however I am personally investing the time necessary to research properly each of the listed schools and create at least stubs for them consisting of verifiable content. It is my understanding that each of these schools is accredited by the appropriate regional accreditation boards in addition to the aanmc and I am researching verification of this and will list it in the stub. I apologize that I am in the steepest part of the wiki editing learning curve and am taking time to insure that each of my edits conforms to wiki standards to the best of my knowledge. I am not yet affiliated with any of these schools. Wikipedia should not be about personal vendettas nor about our personal opinions, rather it should be an attempt to summarize the whole of human knowledge to that end I believe that this is a valid stub and I will continue to work toward bringing it and related articles up to wiki standards I agree with Travisthurston that anyone looking into this as a profession should be informed about valid in all states accreditation vs not recognized by the department of education accreditation Neillawrence 02:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment New user who is also interested in the school Travisthurston attends. Both these users have the same interest in articles, and share the same user boxes. An AFD is not a vote; give reasons/links who it passes WP:CORP. Arbustoo 02:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a list of the six accredited naturopathic medical schools in North America, and as accredited schools of higher learning, there seems to be near-complete consensus that such schools are notable by definition. Sources are provided to document this list. WP:CORP is not relevant here, as this is not an article about an organization or business. The nominator has had longstanding issues with both this field of medicine and accreditation status, both of which intersect here in this article to his apparent consternation. The Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges mentioned in the article does not claim to be an accrediting agency, it seems to focus on the fact that its member schools are all accredited by outside independent and reliable, nationally-recognized accrediting agencies, while other such schools are not; This fact confers notability on the list of schools. Our place is not to validate the efficacy of naturopathic medicine as a medical philosophy or course of treatment; As stated at WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth [emphasis in original], but the nominator seems to be fighting a battle here challenging the field as "an area of contested claims/cures." As the material here in this article is all verifiable, and serves an encyclopedic purpose, the article should be retained. Alansohn 17:40, 22 May 2007 (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.