Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Committee for National 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The result was nomination withdrawn with no delete !votes. Non-admin closure. Deor 05:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Committee for National Security

Committee for National Security (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I am proposing that this information (it is only 1 sentence) be merged into Turkmenistan and the page be deleted. It obviously isn't that important, as there have been no edits in nearly a year. It has been tagged for expansion since January, with no edits since. Rjd0060 00:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on the great work of User:Deltopia, I would like to see this article kept. My main problems were the facts that the article consisted of 1 sentence, and that it hasn't been edited in nearly a year. The article now, however, seems to be in much better shape. Good Work! - Rjd0060 01:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:CSB implies that there are lots of things out there that are important; there just isn't much knowledge or interest in those things by wikipedians. To that end, I did some digging on the web to research this article and expand it a bit. I imagine on the Turkmen wikipedia, if there is such a thing, the locals would be able to come up with great sources and deep info on the topic; using the Internet, and with limited background knowledge, I only came up with sources between 6 and 10 years old. Mainstream media doesn't cover this topic very well, at least, not mainstream media such that I am acquainted with. I think it's potentially a keepable topic, but practically it depends on whether we can find good enough sources and information to make a useful article. No vote from me; I've spent too much time working on it tonight to be unbiased :) Deltopia 01:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep if accurate, clearly notable. JJL 03:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Not only has the article been greatly expanded, but it is obviously notable per WP:Notability. --Sharkface217 03:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notability proven IMO -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:52, 27 October 2007 (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.