Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civilian Defense Agency


 * 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 clear consensus for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Civilian Defense Agency

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Possible hoax. Searching for "Civilian Defense Agency" gives about 80 hits, almost all about defense agencies that are civilian. The article makes it appear as if this is a US government agency, but the website is a single page at a .us address, not a .gov address. The homepage states "Providing contract defense services for military, foreign aid workers, shipping services and more", suggesting perhaps that this is a company, not a government agency. The only hit on Google that is not generic, is this one, which refers to a Texas-based "Civilian Defense Agency, Inc." Whatever this is, a government agency or a company, the lack of sources (reliable or not) indicates a lack of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:CORP, or WP:ORG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Further information is being supplied - A FCC lookup of another FRN associated with the CDA at https://apps.fcc.gov/coresWeb/searchDetail.do?frn=0025608365 shows the agency listed as a government agency. Sources are available to indicate this is noteworthy in the interest of government transparency and how it conducts business. Additionally, as the article states, the headquarters are in Virginia and the Training facility in South Texas so I assume they have licensed radios for use in training and public service.

To the original complainant Mr. Kitty - this is my fist contribution and you haven't even given it a chance to develop. I appreciate your diligence but your request for deletion is not only premature and without proper research but also acting a a tool to suppress information about agencies operating within the confines of the U.S. under authority of U.S. based agencies and operating in a clandestine manner.

If you look at the CIA for example, it is a "CIVILIAN" based entity yet with government authority - an oxymoron in verbiage. I have discovered the CDA is positioned similar and the structure is complex and I truly believe this is noteworthy. I have spoken with a source from the CDA when I had seen personally their personnel in the area. I spoke to one of their personnel and they gave me info I researched and verified. I am gathering information and reporting as I find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giosue725 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, whereas there's a plethora of sources about the CIA, it's rather difficult to even establish whether this CDA even exists. At best, that suggests a lack of encyclopedic notability. In addition, what I get from the FCC, says "Applicant is a security company and will use radios to support their business activities". No mention anywhere of the government. The link you just now provided says "State or Local Agency, State or Local Commission", whereas I would expect that a national organization with a presence in several states would be a "federal agency or commission". --Randykitty (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I listed one of 10 FRN's I found above... A FCC lookup of another FRN associated with the CDA at https://apps.fcc.gov/coresWeb/searchDetail.do?frn=0025608365

Additionally, the article is pretty clear as to their status - I was clear in relaying that I am not sure of the government status in the article since there is conflicting information but with government FRN's I know by that they are operation within some form of governmental authority and I only reported information that was given directly to me and corroborated with in-depth research - not some simple "google" search. I worked in intelligence for 15 years so while I am sure you have the best intention, I would speculate your investigatory prowess is not within the realm of being able to uncover clandestine operations. My intent is to not only uncover this operation but several others I have found throughout my career. In my opinion I believe people have a right to know what is really going on.

Also, regarding the site, just last week it was up and multi-page with quite a bit of info. I can only assume they are updating as the site reports but I don't know since I don't work for their IT department...

I agree than in researching tax filings, I find CDA in Texas, Virginia the Carolinas and several other places. Some listed as CDA holdings and others as CDA, Inc. and some with simply Civilian Defense Agency, that their status is a bit confusing. It is obviously large and recently came out of the shadow - I find it curious as to why so the article reports what I know so far. Perhaps if given the chance others who know more can contribute.

Like I said, I admire your dedication to helping keep Wikipedia a source of reliable knowledge but I still most humbly believe you did little to no research and prematurely requested deletion which is a disservice to the Wikipedia community.

Kind regards... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giosue725 (talk • contribs)


 * Your comment raises several points. 1/ Tax filings, FRNs, etc are not really good sources. They can establish that something exists, but not that it is notable. We call this primary sources. What is needed are secondary sources independent of the subject of the article. 2/ When things cannot be sourced ("I am not sure of the government status"), we cannot put them in an article. You claim that you got information from a source (not admissible), which was "corroborated with in-depth research". The latter is potentially admissible, if that in-depth research turned up reliable sources (please read the linked policies and guidelines in the foregoing, they may not mean what you think). In summary: I could not find any sources about this putative government agency. You claim to have information: please provide your evidence, supported by independent reliable sources and we're done here. --Randykitty (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This whole article appears to be the original research of the article creator. I have looked different ways for information about this agency and found nothing.  If this is really a US Government agency that has been operating since 2004, there would be something that would be available on the internet about it. According to this the domain name was registered on 10 Oct 2015 by a Gio Michell and it is hosted out of Houston, TX.  The Whois for the site is registered to Rick Thomas with a PO Box in Alexandria VA and the phone number that is listed on the website but the registration date is the same.   -- GB fan 18:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know how I missed this before, the creator of this article is Giosue and the first listing I found for the website says it was registered by a Gio Michell. It seems to be suspicious that both these people are Gio. -- GB fan 01:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not seem to meet the most basic general notability guidelines for inclusion. Most of it seems to be original research. EricSerge (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete There's no way that a stand-alone US intelligence agency will get zero useful Google hits, and the premise of the article is dubious given that various other US government agencies have the functions attributed to it. This appears to be a hoax. Nick-D (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd also note that Google searching for the supposed logo of this agency produces zero hits. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete As hoax. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as easily no comprehensible information for any solid notability, nothing else convincing and thus there's no simplicity for basic notability. Best restarted if better available, SwisterTwister   talk  06:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have seen several "advertisement" attempts, but this one takes the cake. Someone starts a private security (or detective) firm, makes it look like a US Govt agency, puts up a website, Logo that appears to be Govt and creates page on Wikipedia. Full marks to Randykitty for marking this for deletion; I would have missed this. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  02:43, 10 June 2016 (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.