Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Respiratory Care Foundation

American Respiratory Care Foundation

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD by creator with reason article is notable. Fails WP:GNG with trivial news coverage. Almost all news mentions are routine and cover a local fundraising event with subject as a beneficiary instead of focusing on the foundation itself. Also no references and obvious WP:COI. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 05:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three times in the last 24 hours you have attempted to delete this article. The American Respiratory Care Foundation is an independent organization that funnels money into scholarships and research in Asthma, COPD and many other respiratory therapy and pulmonology/medicine research projects. This is not a "local fundraising event." Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Sources may be difficult to attain but not impossible and its a little bit ridiculous to spam-attempt to delete this topic that is clearly at least minimally notable. Pulmonological (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia has clearly established guidelines on notability. While its true that this is not a paper encyclopedia, and particularly is not limited by size, every article must be verifiable - this is non-negotiable. If proper reliable sources can be found, then we should keep this, if it remains without sources we should not. If there are no published sources that meet Wikipedia's rules on sources then we cannot take your word (or my word, or anyone's word) about the subject's notability. Sparthorse (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep utilizing any of the above links gives ample sources. I can incorporate them into the article but the weight of this shouldn't just fall on my shoulders. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort to provide notable and reliable information, not simply spam delete templates and then command the article creator to prove it can be admitted into your personal encyclopedia all on their own. Pulmonological (talk) 07:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:BURDEN does put it on your shoulders, to whit: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." For the record, I've had a look myself, but there seems to be no indepth coverage in news (a fundraiser at the University of Maryland seems to be the most significant coverage) or books (passing mentions only), and only passing mentions elsewhere on the internet. In the face of this lack of reliable sources, I too !vote Delete. Yunshui 雲水 08:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel trolled by serial AfD flaggers. Pulmonological (talk) 08:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you feel that way. Please try to assume good faith; we are all here to try and make the encyclopedia better. Part of that is the addition of new contributions, but another part is the management of content in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. Our opposition to the inclusion of the ARCF is based on these policies; so far, I personally (and I assume Vanadus and Sparthorse as well) have been unable to locate any sources for this article which allow it to meet the policy for inclusion. This is not a reflection or criticism on you, your editing, the ARCF or its work. Yunshui 雲水 08:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article prior to your vote, which seems to have gone un-noticed. assuming good faith goes both ways. In the original delete statement above Vanadus says "and obvious WP:COI". Contributions by that user also suggest they copy and paste AfD templates on new articles without reading them. After a clearly notable article has been suggested to be deleted with no other templates for suggestion (how about the notability template?) by the same user on the same day it is hard to not feel trolled. Pulmonological (talk) 08:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all of the article's refs before my earlier comment - without exception, they are either passing mentions (a listing by the AARC or EPA is not significant, in-depth coverage) or from the ARCF's own website (which means they are not independent). This is the main bone of contention - there do not appear to be reliable sources which discuss the Foundation in detail, and that is the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲水 08:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per availability of reliable sources: [1], [2], [3]. A valid, encyclopedic topic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than simply linking to the Google searches which, it may astound you to discover, I have already performed (and which any editor can view using the links at the top of this page), perhaps you might like to indicate which of these trivial, passing mentions confers notability, per the GNG? Yunshui 雲水 13:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Books from Google search which appear to be independent and reliable which discuss this organization include Respiratory Care: Principles and - Page 1173, which has a nice paragraph, Comprehensive perinatal and pediatric respiratory care - Page 158 which briefly cites them as being an authoritative source for respiratory hazards, Fundamentals of respiratory care research, which calls them "the foremost medical professional association to which respiratory therapists turn for funding support." The Grants Register 2009, which says they are "dedicated to the art, science, quality and technology of respiratory care. It is a non-profit organization formed for the purpose of supporting research, education and charitable activities and to promote prevention, quality treatment and management of respiratory-related diseases." A strong keep would need more extensive coverage. The numerous snippet view sources could not be examined to determine the depth of coverage, but someone with better online access to a research library's holding might be able to check them. Edison (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The EPA works with them and thinks highly of them. [4] Google news archive shows their scholarships get coverage. Dream Focus 02:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far, the only thing I see here that comes close to being a valid source for notability is Edison's discovery of the paragraph in Respiratory Care, and even that is minimal (it's in an appendix listing various respiratory care organisations in the US - essentially an extended list entry). The reference in Comprehensive perinatal and pediatric respiratory care is a passing mention that does not address the organisation directly (it mentions a statement that they made, but says nothing about the ARCF itself). The quote from Fundamentals of respiratory care research might suffice, although again it looks as though it could simply be a list entry. Finally, the Grants Register 2009 is simply that - a register of grants - which denotes no inherent notability (should we have a Wikipedia article on every postgraduate who obtained a grant in 2009, because they're all in there?).

For the rest, DreamFocus lists a source which is already in the article - a list entry - and Northamerica1000 has only contributed Google searches. The rest of the article sources are, as I pointed out above, either entries in lists on organisations which say nothing about the ARCF, or from the ARCF's own files. Much as I appreciate Edison's work in tracking sources down, above, I still don't think we have the significant coverage required by the general notability guidelines. Yunshui 雲水 07:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a charitable organization, the subject should meet the more specific criteria listed at WP:ORG. The arguments in this AfD appear to focus on guidelines for the depth of coverage, which specifically mention inclusion in lists of similar organizations and passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization as insufficient material for notability. The sources cited thus far have been lists, passing mentions, or the subject's own website. This includes the paragraph in Respiratory Care. Note the entire chapter 56 is merely a descriptive list of various groups in the respiratory care field. In any case, the difficulty in finding sources and the current lack of a singular substantial mention of the foundation indicate a lack of significant coverage. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 08:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it is very clear that this organization is notable. It seems to me the question of how notable is subjective especially to those wishing to delete this topic. This topic is by far more notable than many articles that haven't recieved this much attention. The news is full of mentions of their continued support of individuals and research; there are hundreds of thousands of articles that mention them as funding supporters and they are partnered with the EPA, what about their relationship would the deleters prefer be sourced? There has been a lot of time spent on this debate that could have gone into actually improving the article and thousands of others that actually qualify for AfD nomination. Kastyn.rrt (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]