Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States House of Representatives Office of Emergency Planning, Preparedness, and Operations


 * 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. Consensus shifted towards "keep" following some improvements to the article during the AFD, although not everyone are entirely certain about the office's significance. There is certainly no consensus to delete at this point however. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

United States House of Representatives Office of Emergency Planning, Preparedness, and Operations

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

Nothing to suggest that this organisation is notable, or has ever done anything interesting. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► directorate ─╢ 12:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. As an agency of the US Federal Gov't, it would seem to pass WP:N almost inherently.  young  american  (wtf?) 14:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no Google Books sources, and I can't really find any third-party reliable sources to give this any notability. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► inspectorate ─╢ 14:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. I can't find squat in the way of sources, either. Changing to weak delete with no prejudice to recreation if and when some reliable third-part sources are found.  young  american  (wtf?) 15:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Going back to keep after recent improvements.  young  american  (wtf?) 12:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Abstain for now. This office appears to have been renamed a couple times, so there may be some history to dig up: . On the other hand, the total salaries for this office make it a virtually insignificant part of the US government: Location (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Try page 20 of this report. As well as providing a clue as to how these offices can be covered, the report also shows that we don't yet have the Office of the Legislative Counsel (although we do have the California Office of the Legislative Counsel, the Oregon Legislative Counsel, and the First Welsh Legislative Counsel). Uncle G (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I am voting this article my keeper of the day. As an entire government agency, the topic is clearly notable and verifiable, unless someone is arguing that this current single source is invalid, and that this agency does not really exist.  As far as I can tell the argument is not that this agency does not exist but rather that it is an actual government agency, but that given that it is indeed a government agency, it somehow still does not meet the test for notability.  Or well, I don't really understand the arguments for deleting this article.  I will say this that it certainly needs some improvement, but it is not the current quality of the article that is at issue, but rather then potential of the topic self to have a good article written about it, and I see no reason that this government agency could not have a good article written about it.  Being a federal agency makes it notable, as well as verifiable, so unless it is beeing argued that there is no evidence what so ever that this agency even exists it is clearly a topic for an article worth keeping.TeamQuaternion (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, all I could find by relaxed searching "Office of Emergency Planning, Preparedness, and Operations" were primary sources like the US budget. I cannot find any evidence that this office has any physical existence whatsoever. So it fails WP:V, in that we have no way of knowing it is fulfilling its alleged duty of providing "emergency planning and operational support." When the whole article consists of one sentence, and it is unsupported by a secondary source (even the primary gov't sources don't say), it must be deleted. Abductive  (reasoning) 08:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It now has some referenced text describing its establishment (2002), operations, and purpose - continuity of House operations during emergencies. Novickas (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Weak keep A mere administrative arrangement. Much too minor to cover.    DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is one of 19 Congressional Offices . Editors have been working on filling out this list in the US Congress template. The lack of third-party sources may stem from security concerns: "details surrounding House and Senate COOP planning are not publicly available, and some specific information is excluded from this report to preserve operational security." from a CRS Report  p. 2.
 * DGG, could you expand your comment re "mere administrative arrangement" and/or point to some previous WP discussions about the notability of federal offices? Do you think others of the 19 are candidates for deletion if multiple, substantive 3rd party sources can't be found? (Some of the WP articles in this template don't currently contain any, for example Recording Studio of the United States House of Representatives.) Novickas (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * see below   DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 15:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is a clear keep in my opinion. As previously mentioned, this is a whole-of-government agency. Moreover, the administration of the department is overseen by notable people which in turn makes it notable itself. Considering the importance of its establishment and aims, i don't see how this could possibly be a delete. Taymaishu (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 06:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 06:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep it appears legit,6 google news hits, mostly government publications. 15 .gov hits, 40 google book hits maybe redirect too Office of Emergency Planning, Preparedness and Operations? Ikip (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would consider a redirect, with the history intact. Ikip (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Appears to be a minor office attached to a larger organization. I don't see a Department of Interior Emergency Management Office article surviving an AfD. This should be no different. --71.191.186.96 (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * — 71.191.186.96 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  First and only edit. Ikip (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I was asked to comment on my opinion above. The various House and Congressional offices of of unequal importance--the specific reference for what they actually do is  Some, such as    the Congressional Budget Office. are of very major public importance. Od much less public concern is the House Recording Studio  which helps the House members prepare their   speeches to constituents; it  will   get mentions in the sense of production credits, but is not of any actual importance outside the House. Even less so,  the Office of the Attending Physician--important as it may be to an individual member from time to time in his or her personal capacity. This body seems to in practice regulate house security--I am not sure of its relationship with the Capitol Police.  But I suppose there is no harm in they all being covered, but then  I would hope we will do the same for every  national legislative body. Itewould help in the article to say something specific about what it actually does do, not just copy the insubstantial languqge on the web site..    DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Some points. 1) This office probably suffers lack of 3rd party coverage for the same reasons as other emergency management programs - when an emergency arises, the responsible body gets media attention, but if/until such happens, there won't be much. They've been involved in at least one exercise, there's a link to that in the article. Another one here from DHS . It was a TOPOFF 3 exercise, there's no Wikilink to TOPOFF, but interested persons can Google that. 2) Re the lack of specific operational descriptions - as ref'd above, their operations are sensitive. 3) Re copy-paste from US gov't PD sources, that's currently acceptable on WP and definitely proves its existence and notability from the point of view of the US govt. 4) Without knowing the WP notability background of "every national legislative body" (have they been deleted in the past?) any such body sounds notable from a common-sense viewpoint. Novickas (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note to closing administrator since this article was put up for deletion, it has been significantly improved and rewritten by User:Novickas Ikip (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep All government agencies are inherently notable. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely not such rule or consensus stating that gov't agencies are "inherently notable." User:TomCat4680's notion needs to be completely ignored--not even counted as a vote, since this is not a vote.  Abductive  (reasoning) 20:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My vote is just as good as yours. I'm removing your comments as a personal attack. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only are those comments not a personal attack (in what way to they attack your person?), even if they were, do not delete people's remarks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► sheriff ─╢ 06:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My vote is just as good as his and I filed an ANI. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we agree that while you have every right to make an opinion (this is not voting, remember?), your view isn't in line with current policy at the moment? That's it.  The closing admin can decide what weight to give to that, and I think that's the best we can do right now.  No opinion either way on the actual issue.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy but the government of the USA is. There will always be an appropriate level of the bureaucratic hierarchy to direct such agencies to, even if we can't find much to say about them separately.  As there will thus usually be a good alternative to deletion, such agencies should not be brought to AFD per WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:07, 1 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.