Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community Relations Service

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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Community Relations Service[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proxied request made by Ms. Klimp of the United States Department of Justice. VRTS ticket # 2013052110009571. L Faraone 13:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (confer) @ 15:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gossip) @ 15:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't get to OTRS from where I am today,. so what were their objections? A few years ago, this was a much more promotional article, written by them, which was subsequently reduced to the present stub. I think it would be reasonable to try to expand it again, properly. Whatever reasons there may be for deleting a borderline notable BLP at the subject's request , this does not apply to government organizations. It's sounds more like, realizing they can't get the article they want, they'd rather have nothing. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 14:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a couple of newspaper and a couple of book refs. No rationale for deleting an article on a publicly funded body. AllyD (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cannot see the OTRS ticket; is there a reason for deletion given? I do not understand the nomination. Is there something factually incorrect or worse with the article that warrants attention if not deletion? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, I should perhaps provide a bit more context in future OTRS-proxied nominations. Based solely on the information provided in the ticket, I have no opinion. Often biographical subjects simply don't want to have an article about them; I suppose governmental organisations can "feel" similarly, especially when their profile is otherwise low. L Faraone 12:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.