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 delete. SoWhy 07:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Multiple Sclerosis Association of America[edit]

The Multiple Sclerosis Association of America (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)

• Borderline GNG - there's many primary, but not obviously passing WP:NCORP. (Recreated at The Multiple Sclerosis Association of America because Multiple Sclerosis Association of America has been 3x deleted G11)
• Listing to decide on notability, and if failing reccd salting here too. Widefox; talk 21:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails NCORP (only trivial mentions are there and no in-depth coverage). Article in its current state does not make any claim of significance either. — kashmiri ^TALK 00:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Apparently not getting much attention in the news. Still there is coverage with more than trivial mention. I find some coverage in books, frequently listed as a resource with a short description of services it offers: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Coverage in some other pubs: [7] [8] [9] Gab4gab (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's noting here that constitutes a claim of notability and nothing found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom comment sources and app have potential for NCORP - suggest WP:AFC (or WP:USERFY to User:Kaitlynmsaa or someone who wants it). Widefox; talk 18:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy to creator. I do not find significant coverage in the sources Gab4gab lists, just things like the mention of MSAA's patient app, My MS Manager. While it is possible that a resolute library search might turn up enough for an article, I haven't seen adequate evidence of it yet. With that caveat, I'd go with Userfication, giving the creator another chance, no guarantee. --Bejnar (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The guidance on what qualifies as 'significant coverage' is rather vague, leaving me uncertain. Still I'd like to mention a couple things. The first book source I listed has over two pages covering the MSAA. The Multiple Sclerosis News Today is an independent source which has many non-trivial articles covering MSAA as well as other multiple sclerosis organizations and related news. This [10] search of their site (some but not all results address MSAA) could provide material to expand the article. I have no objection to Userfication if the creator is interested. Gab4gab (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Multiple Sclerosis News Today and dozens of other <disease_name> News Today portals [11] run by BioNews Services actually pull nearly all of their content from the websites of disease-specific charities. Hence MSAA's name there. But being mentioned on those portals should not confer notability. — kashmiri ^TALK 17:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest discounting such churnalism as primary sources which don't count for notability. Considering the org age (and admittedly topic seems WP:USEFUL), I'd prefer to give source finding a chance. Note creator has COI and so far refuses to engage as creator of Draft:Multiple Sclerosis Association of America, Multiple Sclerosis Association of America. Widefox; talk 11:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a fairly small (around $11M in revenues) and seemingly unremarkable non-profit with no claim to notability, no reason to expand, no apparent owner. --Lockley (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Hold the phone — this non-profit was organized in 1970 — which is damned near half a century ago. I'm seeing 70K G-hits for the exact name of the organization. It beggars belief that this group doesn't pass GNG. Searching... Carrite (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hmmmm, Newspapers.com is slim pickings indeed. I did find THIS mentioning the group from a 2002 piece on the launch of Charity Navigator:

CN rates nonprofits on a scale of zero to four stars. Nearly 70 percent of the charities evaluated so far have ratings of three stars or better. Only 23 received zero stars. Several in this dubious category are what Stamp calls "sound-alike" charities, including the Multiple Sclerosis Association of America (MSAA). Some givers confuse that charity with the four-star National Multiple Sclerosis Society. MSAA is spending somewhere around 30 cents on the dollar for actual research, and "the rest is just spent on direct-mail campaigns," Stamp says. "It's clear we didn't need the MS Association of America."

I'm not spotting any histories of the organization counting towards GNG and most of the news coverage I'm seeing relates to their fundraising rather than programmatic efforts. Carrite (talk) 13:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have scratched my "userfy" !vote; having been convinced that this fails WP:GNG, and as stated in that comment above. --Bejnar (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2017 (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.