Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International defense organization

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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 09:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] International defense organization

Article about a largely empty website for an organization that may or may not exist. Likely A4 or OR, putting it here to be sure. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• The article is about the organization, not the website. As for the organization, it exists - that much is certain. Its existence is corroborated by a United Nations document I found in which the organization is up for conversion into a "specialized agency of the United Nations." The Wikipedia article offers as much information as can be gathered about an organization that few know about. Just because it is a somewhat esoteric entity that falls beyond the public's radar does not mean it shouldn't have a page. Perhaps with some public interest, details about the organization will begin to emerge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Written (talk • contribs).
• Delete absent verification. The UN document refers to the International Civil Defense Organization. Gazpacho 09:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - tough one but I am veering towards keep on this one. It's suitably interesting for an encyclopaedia. The web pages definitely exist. What they are all about is another matter. But enough to warrant speculation. Reminds me about that terrorist group that was planning to destroy the twin towers on September 11th, 2001. You know, the S11 group of anti-globalisationalists. Oh man did they ever get in trouble after the planes blew up. So many people thought that they were involved. Of course, they insisted that what they meant was that they were going to disrupt things with a violent protest and a few smoke bombs. Reminds me a lot about that, or the affiliated Earth-something or other terrorist group of environmental protestors. I forget what they are called. Whether this organisation is a terrorist organisation is another matter entirely. I don't know what they are. But seems interesting enough for Wikipedia. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 09:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Um, wild tagents aside, being "interesting" is not enough to warrant inclusion. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral. Seems an org by that name exists [1]. But I think we need more info than that. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment - Click the PDF link and you'll see that the text refers to the International Civil Defense Organization. FCYTravis 10:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Unverifiable absent sourcing. FCYTravis 10:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• "It is unclear whether the website is the legitimate front for an "international defense organization" or some kind of prank." That makes it a clear delete as non-verifiable and non-notable. -- Kjkolb 01:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Kjkolb. Eusebeus 07:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Whatever - I think you all take too narrow a view vis-a-vis the "non-verifiable" and "non-notable" lines of thought. A great deal on Wikipedia is not verifiable, or not notable in one way or another (check out the entry for Wongo.com - what the hell is that nonsense?). When I use wikipedia, I use it as an all-encompassing resource. If something's out there, regardless of what its true nature is, I'd like a wikipedia article covering it. We know this website exists, it seems mildly interesting. It could be an organization, or it could be a rock band, or something else - however, it exists. The article addresses its existence. Sure, this isn't "Babylon 5" material or anything badass like that, but why delete something just because you don't know about it? In any event, I'm indifferent at this point. Delete it if you like, leave it if you like. Whatever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Written (talk • contribs).

If you can find something substantial about it, I'll change my vote to keep. Regards, Ben Aveling

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.