Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COPE Foundation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COPE Foundation[edit]

COPE Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local foundation with no apparent notability . Unwisely accepted from AfC. (FWIW, I'm finding these checking submissions to see what shouldn't be deleted from AfC as old G13s, and for every one I mark for rescue--or even immediate acceptance into mainspace--I seem to be finding one that should never have been accepted. ) DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
do you have any sources to back this claim? LibStar (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: with more than 50 years in existence it seems quite notable especially being supported by a large Irish government grant. ww2censor (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:ORG. Length of existence is not relevant if no significant coverage exists, and I note none of the keep voters found any sources. LibStar (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at this? I think that alone proves notabilty. ww2censor (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2014 (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.