Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qualified Intellectual Disability Professional


 * 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 no consensus. I have to discount the "keep" for personal attacks, and the proposed merger makes little sense given that it proposes merging another article into this one, which leaves us with no consensus.  Sandstein  19:56, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Qualified Intellectual Disability Professional

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTEVERYTHING applies here. Does not meet WP:GNG.  // Timothy ::  talk  00:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   // Timothy ::  talk  00:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge per Talk:Qualified_Intellectual_Disability_Professional -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply: Both articles have been nominated for deletion based on not meeting WP:GNG and WP:NOTEVERYTHING.  // Timothy ::  talk  13:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. What a barbaric, stupid proposal. No case is made for this term failing the GNG, and none can be made. This is a standard, well-documented term. Now while some editors may believe that an encyclopedia is not the place to provide accurate, useful information to parents and family members trying to deal with the many problems of intellectually disabled children and adults, as opposed to the core encyclopedic function of presenting semifictional promotional biographies of professional wrestlers, I do not. And I have no respect for the opinion of those who do. Merger appears appropriate, but should not be discussed in the deletion context. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article does not support claim for notability and BEFORE shows none. None of the sources provide SIGCOV of the topic directly and in-depth. Further a job description will vary in different jurisdictions. The topic meets NOTEVERYTHING, it is encyclopedic.
 * Sources in the article are primary, others do not even mention the job title, and none meet WP:GNG guidelines to establish notability.  // Timothy ::  talk  01:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:08, 24 September 2020 (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.