Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Nations Department for Safety and Security


 * 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. JForget 00:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

United Nations Department for Safety and Security

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

This article was AFDed six months ago, and the result was "Keep"... however, in that time, the article hasn't changed at all; it's still a very short stub. The serious problem is that it still has no reliable, third-party sources. I feel that six months is long enough to give those who argued that the organisation was notable; they haven't managed to include any non-self-published references in that time, so I have to bring it back here. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► First Secretary of State ─╢ 16:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a major UN department that undertakes a critical internayional role. It was notable six months ago, is notable today and will be notable in six months time. A couple of examples to show the significance of the role of this department: Here is the body advising in which areas of Somalia it was safe for humanitarian work and here the organisation advises on security in Gaza. Further sources are here. The nominator is rightly concerned that third-party sources are not in the article but the best way forward is to add them, not keep bringing the page back here. TerriersFan (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You were one of the most vocal proponents of keeping the article last time; why have you not improved it, rather than just objecting every time somebody points out that it's sub-standard? You say you have sources, please, go ahead and add them. It's not everybody else's job to better the articles you insist are kept. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► secretariat ─╢ 17:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't "insist are kept" since no editor can insist; I merely expressed my view. What we have here is a major and important international body that, in my view, is self-evidently notable. We don't delete on the lack of sources in a page but when they are not available. Also I didn't "just objecting every time somebody points out that it's sub-standard" since it is evidently sub-standard. What I am objecting to is this renomination, less than six months after a unanimous keep, on the grounds that the sources haven't been added within an arbitrary period. There is no timescale for adding sources. TerriersFan (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was a unanimous keep; I was arguing for deletion, if I recall correctly.
 * And I asked a very specific question; if you have sources now, and you had them last time, why on Earth didn't you add them to the article? ╟─ Treasury Tag ► cabinet ─╢ 17:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - the previous AfD is at Articles for deletion/Department for Safety and Security. TerriersFan (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Linked above :) ╟─ Treasury Tag ► voice vote ─╢ 17:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a notable department of a very notable organization. It needs sources, yes. - Richard Cavell (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - third party sources are definitely within reach Shii (tock) 00:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This seems to play a much larger role than I would have guessed. The article could well be expanded  DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 7 September 2009 (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.