Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Office for Emergency Relief and Refugees


 * 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Office for Emergency Relief and Refugees

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is improperly written. No references either, appears to violate NPOV. However, a notable subject, so I suggest deletion and re-write. -- Meld    shal   13:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am not sure what improprieties are claimed to exist in the article.  The subject seems fairly obviously notable and potentially referenceable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Though the article needs much more meat and more references to assert notability.Wikigonish (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article needs enhancing, not erasure. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * delete as there are no sources provided at all. Jessi1989 (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * comment this might be a potential source, not sure how reliable it is though... this just seems to be a brief mention of someone affiliated with the office... that's all i can find so i'm sticking with my delete vote for now. Jessi1989 (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. If there are problems with style or with content of the article, they could be removed after editing or expansion.  The subject is notable enough. The article belongs to List of non-governmental organizations in Thailand.Ans-mo (talk) 05:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * comment i must say that i'm rather surpised to be the only delete voter here. the wikipedia policy wp:nor (no original research) says ""Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." other wikipedia policies such as wp:v (verifiabilty) and guidelines such as wp:n (notability) effectively say the same thing. regarding the current references, the first (disaster resource network) is not a reliable, published secondary source but rather a list of disaster resources. the second only briefly mentions the coerr, the coerr is not the subject of the article, and even if it was i'm not certain this counts as a reliable, published secondary source either. the third (committee for coordination of services to displaced persons in thailand) only mentions the coerr by name and doesn't say anything about it. unless multiple, published secondary sources can be found this article should not exist. keep voters are making no reference to wikipedia policies, which isn't surprising as no policy supports the current article. you'll need to find some real sources if you want this article kept. sorry :( Jessi1989 (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you insert the name of the article into search engine, there will be a plenty of different sources. Many times COERR is mentioned in pdf documents (for example, of UNICEF - is that reliable?), which are not convenient for providing direct links. One of the references (in the message of Pope John Paul II) I have added to the article.Ans-mo (talk) 06:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * what you have added is just a mention of the office, not an article covering it. for wikipedia to have an article about something it must have reliable, published secondary sources. these means that more than one major media organisation must have dedicated an entire story/article to this subject. that's what you need to be looking for. Jessi1989 (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, as the article says, in 1986 the Pope chose this Catholic charity to give an International prize to. There are many articles on impressive-sounding charities on Wikipedia that are actually two part time people in a dusty office somewhere. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2008 (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.