Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Canadian Film Craftspeople

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. A redirect can perhaps be created separately. Sandstein 15:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Canadian Film Craftspeople[edit]

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

Does not appear to have significant coverage in third-party sources. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Appears to have indicia of notability as a legitimate trade organization. Montanabw^(talk) 19:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a branch of UNIFOR, I see. I've added that category to the page. I suppose we could simply redirect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No prejudice against recreation in the future if proper reliable source coverage can be located to support an article, but no claim of notability ever entitles an article topic to an exemption from having to pass GNG just because it exists. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the org exists, but this is not a reason enough to have an encyclopedia article. WP:TOOSOON applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2016 (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.