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, with the request to expand the article. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Department for Safety and Security (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Doesn't seem to have any real notability as an actual department (mainly internal stuff, like issuing passes to the New York HQ); certainly lists no third-party sources whatsoever. Even the official website - linked - is very limited indeed, containing little information about the department, and sourcing basically none of the material on the page. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - far from dealing with 'internal stuff' this department is involved with all of the UN's operations, assessing safety and security risks and implementing precautions. This is one of the major departments of the United Nations. Some of the importance of their work can be gauged from these sources. Each of the departments in United Nations Secretariat#Organization are worth a page. In this case, the article should be expanded to show their operational role and not deleted. TerriersFan (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - a couple of examples to show the significance of the role of this department. Here is the body advising in which areas of Somalia it was safe for humanitarian work and here the organisation advises on security in Gaza. TerriersFan (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Expand--H8erade (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep if it actually is expanded from real sources. . We really should require distinctive titles for article like these. I am not quite sure they satisfy more than incidental mentions. DGG (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Its a stub but its notable and has the potential to expand.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2009 (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.