Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States


 * 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. (non-admin closure) — Theopolisme   ( talk  )  02:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about an obscure, non-notable UN office with an inordinately flamboyant title. The entire article consists of a single sentence, most of which is a restatement of the title and redundant links to other articles. Fails WP:ORG. - MrX 04:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I was unable to find online secondary in-depth sources about this UN office that were independent of the the UN. The deprodder for this article claimed that they thought the UN inherently notable, but both WP:ORG and WP:GOV make it clear that no organization is inherently notable and that notability of this office is not inherited from the UN itself. The office is reasonably covered in the Least developed country article, but it's unclear whether this topic has enough coverage for a standalone article. As it stands, this topic seems to fail general notability guidelines WP:GNG and well as WP:ORG and WP:GOV guidelines for notability, which suggests the article should be deleted. --Mark viking (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, too obscure a topic to merit an article. The title is nearly half the length of the entire article. J I P  &#124; Talk 07:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I stand by my statement that departments of the UN are inherently notable due to their wide-ranging remit. Every other office of the UN has an article, and there is no reason for this one not to have (and please don't quote WP:OSE at me - there's a good reason why every UN office has an article). The fact the article is short is irrelevant, as is made perfectly clear by WP:STUB. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 06:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. How can it make any sense at all to delete this meagre article? Would it improve the encyclopedia if the entry in United Nations Secretariat was a red link or no link at all? The office is verifiably in existence and if the notability guidelines lead us to think the office is not notable it is clear evidence that the guidelines are wrong. Newspapers will only cover this organisation if corruption or maladministration is uncovered. I suppose the information (which should be expanded) could be merged into United Nations Secretariat, leaving a redirect, but that would require that the article is not deleted. Thincat (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think a redirect, either to the United Nations Secretariat or the Least developed country articles, is a reasonable course of action as well. While this topic fails notability thresholds, it could become notable in the future, and preserving the history would be useful in this case. --Mark viking (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a perfectly good stub; the nomination gives no good reason to delete. Obscurity has never been a reason to delete; only notability matters. Bearian (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I should have been more clear in my nomination, most of which is background information. The main rationale for the nomination is that this organization fails WP:ORGSIG, specifically: "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is." I was not able to find independent sources with which to determine the notability of this office, so I assume it is not notable. - MrX 00:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There are some situations where WP:IAR is the best policy to invoke. WP:COMMONSENSE is always a good essay to look at in these situations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In the paragraph below WP:COMMONSENSE, it is asserted that there is no common sense. I tried looking in WP:COMMON to see if any precedents had been set for UN articles, but could not find any. I'll note that other UN Offices are even worse off than this one. If you look at the UN secretariat web page, OHRLLS is in the "Special Advisers, Representatives and Envoys" section; other offices, such as the Office on Sport for Development and Peace, aren't even mentioned in the United Nations Secretariat article. If we added all such offices, there would be many red links. --Mark viking (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And the problem with that is...? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, just noting that your assertion that every other UN office has an article is untrue. --Mark viking (talk) 10:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My mistake. But it doesn't change the fact that I believe this to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, now that there are two sentences (no kidding). If there had been just the one, I'd have voted to redirect to United Nations Secretariat. As it is, a UN office is the top level organization in the Secretariat, and every other office has an article . Clarityfiend (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that we can take it that the secretariat was created because these countries tend to be overlooked. We need to make sure that WP does not compound such problems by its application of the notability criteria. It is not just a compendium of things that interest the media in the large countries of the English-speaking world, and there are many thousands of articles on things that do not. A key purpose of the notability criteria is to ask whether there is a reasonable likelihood that users will want to look up the topic in an encyclopedia and whether it is reasonable for them to expect to find it here - I would answer both in the affirmative. This stub is clearly capable of expansion, for example to explain the secretariat's role, the circumstances of its creation, etc. --AJHingston (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs flushing out, but the entity itself is significant. As any division of the UN, it bears maintaining an article about. Kabirat (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2013 (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.