Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology

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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

May fail WP:GNG for organizations. I noticed the organization has been mentioned in some content on JSTOR, but the majority of it seems to be self published by the Association. Perhaps others can provide insight. SarahStierch (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps the nominator could find some insight by looking at the links to scholarly papers, books and news articles provided by the nomination process. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the majority appear to be written by the organization, which doesn't necessarily state notability, as far as I'm aware. SarahStierch (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't say that, only referring to JSTOR, and if you had said it it would have been untrue. The majority of the first few dozen of the Google Books and News hits linked above are completely independent of this organization, and if you scroll down the Google Scholar results you can also find many hundreds that are not from APIC's journal, the American Journal of Infection Control. Shouldn't we be able to expect an administrator and apparatchik to tell the truth and to demonstrate at least a little competence? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This looks like a major institution that puts out well-regarded national-level guidelines on infection control. Sources I found:

1. Academic article in Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology on guidelines for infection control put out by APIC and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America
2. Article on guidelines on endoscope reprocessing by APIC and others
3. Article on Antimicrobial Stewardship One sentence of the abstract says "The Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC) and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology (SHEA) are the professional organizations with historical focus, expertise, and credibility in articulating and implementing best practices in antimicrobial stewardship and infection prevention and control."
4. Soule, Barbara M., and Rosemary Berg. The APIC curriculum for infection control practice. Kendall/Hunt Pub., 1988.
5. Bioterrorism readiness plan by APIC and the CDC
6. Legislative Mandates for Use of Active Surveillance Cultures to Screen for Methicillin‐Resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Vancomycin‐Resistant Enterococci: Position Statement From the Joint SHEA and APIC Task Force
7. NY Times article on infection control guidelines put out by APIC and others
8. Charlotte Observer article on APIC
9. Medical News Today article on APIC MRSA Prevalence Study and subsequent polls

Sources 1, 2, and 7-9 are secondary sources; sources 1-6 are peer-reviewed. All except possibly the Charlotte Observer article are in depth; the Charlotte Observer is behind a paywall, but looks likely to be in depth. All of these are from reliable publishers. Because APIC puts out national guidelines for infection control, they are quoted or referenced in hundreds of articles and reports. So it seems that there are multiple reliable sources indicating notability, even if one excludes all the peer reviewed articles in American Journal of Infection Control. Given the notability of the topic, the article should be kept. Mark viking (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.