Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COPE (Boy Scouts of America)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I see a consensus to Keep this article, seeing several editors invoke WP:HEY in their comments. A possible Merge/Redirect/Rename discussion can occur on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

COPE (Boy Scouts of America)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I boldly re-directed to Boy Scouts of America, because the article is entirely primary sourced, and some contents I trimmed out were unsourced and added by WP:SPA in these diffs. The re-direct was challenged by an editor, so I am nominating for re-direct to Boy Scouts of America I believe the program itself does not have significant reliable secondary source coverage independent of Boy Scounts of America. Graywalls (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting,  and United States of America. Graywalls (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep --evrik (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am going to be AFK until next week. Just an FYI, I just posted this: Administrators%27 noticeboard/Edit warring --evrik (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , Consensus is not a vote. You casted a vote "keep" that doesn't provide any justification. Please detail how this article meets WP:GNG. Wikipedia article should be based primarily on published, reliable, secondary sources, per WP:PSTS. This article is almost entirely written from sources related to the program or its program sponsor (BSA). Given it's almost written based on program or BSA affiliated sources, there's really nothing to merge. Once re-directed, a re-direct section can always be changed and contents added to the target page as reliable sources are found. Graywalls (talk) 10:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ha. This right now is a driveby !vote with an AFK (no getsy-backsy). No basis or analysis or... words. Fingers crossed to hear back about rationale before day 7. Some of "next week" comes sooner than that. Could be Monday! Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 04:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Graywalls, I posted a link to the larger discussion about your behavior. I'll make my thoughts known below. --evrik (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete Sourcing is WP:PRIMARY sourced to COPE documents. All the sources are like that. It is currently non-notable. The redirect should have remained in place instead of being reverted.   scope_creep Talk  11:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: I searched and could not find any reliable independent secondary sources covering this topic. Left guide (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per the solid coverage identified below by Isaidnoway. Boys' Life won't count towards notability since it's a publication of the BSA (and thus not independent), but the rest look good. Left guide (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * KeepThis is a program with tens of thousands of certified instructors and millions of participants. Saying that it is "primary sourced" like saying that anything is written about by a human about humans is "primary sourced".  And even so, information that meets even that overly restrictive standard certainly exists. And much of the "boring" informative enclyclopedic information for an program organization is only covered in depth and authoritatively by the organization that organizes/runs it.  Contrary to the implications of the nomination, there is no wiki-requirement against this. North8000 (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it shouldn't be covered briefly in another article but without meeting WP:GNG, it doesn't qualify for a stand alone article unless there's applicable WP:SNG. Article should be mostly based on secondary sources. There's an explanatory essay WP:Based upon endorsed within that. Given just how much of the article is dependent primary sourced, there's not much to merge. So, re-direct was a reasonable approach. "Lots of people use it" doesn't automatically make it pass GNG. Multiple editors have gone out and tried to find significant coverage in secondary sources and they're coming back with none. Graywalls (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article fails to show the programmes notability, uses mainly primary sources and describes a minor and very BSA-specific aspect of ropes courses in an educational setting. Some of its contents could maybe be merged to Ropes course if secondary sources can be found. --jergen (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Products. Graywalls (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge and then redirect to Boy_Scouts_of_America. Per the discussion above, and per the few secondary sources that have been added to the article, COPE (aka C.O.P.E.) appears to be a well-known and well-loved program run by the Boy Scouts of America since the 1970s. However, at the moment, it is only mentioned in passing in a photo caption within the main Boy Scouts of America article. It would be great if a few sentences about COPE could be added there, as there isn't a lot of depth in the secondary sources found to date about the project itself. (That said, COPE is quite challenging to search for given its frequency as a word, so please do ping me if additional sources are found, or if the merge has been completed.) Cielquiparle (talk) 06:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Common abbreviations and acronyms can usually be navigated in search by entering the full name which in this case is "Challenging Outdoor Personal Experience". Graywalls (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have merged one sentence and source to the target page, so think it's OK to just redirect to Boy Scouts of America. Parvin Bishop fans will be happy to note that he is still mentioned in an article called Scouting in Missouri. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete for failing WP:GNG. This particular program is not the subject of substantial or standalone coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. If we were to merge, we'd prefer only non-primary sources to demonstrate why the program is noteworthy. There's not a whole lot, but merge what you will. The redirect that replaces this doesn't need the article history. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 02:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep – this is a notable program judging from the amount of coverage it has received from around the country: Kentucky, Oregon, New Jersey, Missouri, Florida, Virginia, Texas, Indiana, Wisconsin, Tennessee (that's just a handful I found). The program has also been frequently featured in Boys Life Magazine, Volume 89, Issue 11,  (Nov 1999): pp. 44-47;  (just one example).


 * And apparently the program is not just for Scouts, some scouting camps open the program up to adults from surrounding communities; and also Police Explorers in Florida, company employees at H.B. Fuller, college students from the University School of Jackson and Reserve Officers' Training Corps in Florida. The COPE program has also been introduced into schools curriculums, and also adapted for juvenile offenders.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "The principals of Centennial and Wilde Lake high schools are expected to sign an agreement tomorrow with the Boy Scouts of America to introduce Challenging Outdoor Personal Experience, an outdoor program to the schools' curriculum". The Washington Post, March 13, 2008: p. T2
 * "Nonviolent juvenile offenders will be offered a specially tailored version of Scouting's COPE (challenging outdoor personal experience) aimed at boosting teamwork and self-esteem". St. Louis Post - Dispatch, July 26, 1999: p. 1
 * I think with a little work, it can be developed into an article that doesn't rely so heavily on primary sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment. For those that aren't familiar, Boys' Life is the monthly magazine of the Boy Scouts of America (now known as Scout Life), so it doesn't qualify as an independent source. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly what I already said when I changed my !vote above. There's still plenty of sufficient coverage shown in this discussion. Left guide (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've also struck my previous !vote and reworked the article to get rid of all the dodgy extraneous history that no one liked (which probably should have been deleted sooner). Of the sources provided by, I liked the article about Project COPE being offered to private groups, although anyone who is intent on deleting will say that's inherently "promotional". Also helpful to know that Project COPE has been offered to nonviolent juvenile offenders and high schools. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The point I was illustrating with the private group, etc. is how widespread the usage of the program is outside of the Boy Scouts using it, from private companies, to law-enforcement academies, the ROTC, college students, high schools and juvenile offender programs. There was also a lot of coverage about local businesses, Rotary clubs, the Girl Scouts, and other small entitles utilizing the COPE program. I also found some mentions of the program in academic journals, but nothing that would qualify as significant coverage. I also found a mention of it in a congressional report, again though, not significant coverage there either. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Then re-direct and develop contents at target seems until or if stand alone article is justified sounds like an agreeable solution? You struck out re-direct in !vote but the text seems to support the redirect. Graywalls (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEY and WP:GNG and move to Project COPE. The article has essentially been completely rewritten, with many new secondary sources added. (To be clear, it really was in an abysmal state at the time of nomination, such that I previously !voted to redirect in agreement with the nominator.) However, since then,  pointed out that there is a ton of coverage about "Project COPE" since its inception in 1980, demonstrating WP:SUSTAINED interest in newspapers nationwide, as well as relevance to other non-Boy Scout-affiliated groups in the wider public. (I had not been searching for "Project COPE" and hadn't realized how important the "Project" part of the name was; after having read lots of coverage, I would argue this article actually should be renamed.) Of the newspaper articles I have read so far, the most in-depth, descriptive ones that I found helpful in expanding the article were "Teens Battle Their Demons: Kids from different walks of life learn to trust, communicate", which appeared in the Ledger-Enquirer in Columbus, Georgia in 1987; the 2017 "COPE challenges Scouts' skills" in the St. Joseph News-Press; and "Learning the ropes in the outdoors: Project COPE offers challenge for area Scouts" in the Daily Hampshire Gazette in Massachusetts in 2005. And there are many other secondary sources cited in the article besides. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I support the statements made by Cielquiparle. --evrik (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep are nominators not required to at least look for sources? Moxy 🍁 00:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * , I did; as did several other editors. WP:BEFORE does not call for spending an entire day conducting an absolutely exhaustive search. Please assume good faith. Graywalls (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A quick search shows multiple sources..... The question here really is Does deletion help? Moxy 🍁 00:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, but WP:GOOGLEHITS is not what it is about. I had not been searching as "Project COPE" either, but the hits I was getting are not SIGCOV material. Graywalls (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEY and per Cielquiparle. I wasn't going to !vote as I didn't think it was necessary. But despite that, I wanted to answer the BEFORE comment above. The nom. statement said that there were not reliable secondary sources, and clearly there was a BEFORE, because, on the face of it, that evaluation looked correct and this looked like a spinout of Boy Scouts of America. Take a look at all the books, articles and other hits and think how many of those are independent? How many are secondary sources? Graywalls boldly redirected the page and the page was restored by evrik. WP:BURDEN says, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, which is every bit as important as the advice in WP:BEFORE. Yet evrik did not even leave an edsum on the restore, much less deal with the issue raised with the sourcing. No talk, nothing, and their !vote on this AfD was also a simple "keep" vote with no comment whatsoever. BURDEN was not met. I have watched this AfD from the start, and Cielquiparle - with the help of sources found by Isaidnoway, and the point Isadnoway made about the larger scope - has found the notable core of this subject and rewritten and refactored the page. A page that looked like it should not have been spun out from its parent has now been shown to be independently notable. Deletion is not for cleanup, but sometimes that is the result. This is an excellent example of the process really helping. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment . I didn't write a full explanation because I'm supposed to be on a break. I did however want to put down a marker. Look at this discussion. This article does need improvement, but not deletion. Cielquiparle has done a good job of improving this article. --evrik (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.