Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The COPING Project


 * 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   delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The COPING Project

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 17:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions.  Cliff  Smith 17:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There are no independent sources establishing the notability of this topic. - Biruitorul Talk 16:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - There are plenty of sources for this article. A Google Books search reveals more than 400 hits, many of which are positive. Neelix (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The only usable hit I could see was this. That could conceivably justify an article, but let's not stretch one source to "plenty of sources". - Biruitorul Talk 19:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See also:, , , , , . Neelix (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's starting to stretch it again. A funding request, a press release with bare mention of COPING, a list of links from an activist site, another funding request, testimony before a UN committee and a UN press release abuse the scope of WP:RS. - Biruitorul Talk 22:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm with on this.  None of the references you have provided constitute significant coverage from a reliable and independent sources.  Throwing up a Google search isn't exactly helpful, either.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  12:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete none of the sources are both independent and indepth enough. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The way in which you have rejected the sources above imposes a far stricter and arbitrary standard than is supportable by the guidelines. The sources presented are valid and demonstrate the notability of the subject. Neelix (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources are all to either (a) the project itself (which is no independent) or (b) it's funding agency (which has a fincanial relationship with it). These are standard independence tests, clearly failed. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That is not true. This is a source that is completely independent of the project and its funding. So is this, which is not invalidated as a source by calling it an "activist site", and this, which is not a funding request as has been suggested. Here are more valid sources:, , , . This article passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines for non-commercial organizations. Neelix (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * doesn't work for me. All of the others mention the organisation by name, but do not "address the subject directly in detail" as is required by WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Still a stretch. Call the Irish Penal Reform Trust what you will, but the fact that they've included a link to COPING as part of a long list of external links is not evidence of significant coverage. This and this are trivial mentions, recording that two beneficiaries of the project one spoke at a forum. This is also trivial, as well as being a blog post. I'm not sure we want to source something to the "Kids Visiting in Prison Newsletter" and anyway, this is not exactly a usable source. This is a press release, which we tend to avoid. The depth of coverage normally required just doesn't seem to be there. - Biruitorul Talk 14:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean that this source doesn't work for you? You haven't presented any reasons against using it. You haven't presented a reason against using this source either, other than that you don't like the name "Kids Visiting in Prison Newsletter". The depth of coverage that you are suggesting we require is beyond what we normally require. Neelix (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes "Kids VIP Newsletter" a reliable source? We normally have sources of a rather higher quality and don't have to resort to some unknown charity's PR materials to try and justify an article's existence. - Biruitorul Talk 18:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Kids Visiting in Prison is a registered charity; it is not unknown. These are valid, reliable sources. Neelix (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that Kids Visiting in Prison is a registered charity in no way implies that the "Kids Visiting in Prison Newsletter" is a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". There is no evidence of editorial oversight or anything that might give one confidence in this entity.
 * And, yes, Kids VIP is essentially unknown: the Google results speak for themselves. - Biruitorul Talk 17:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Government of the United Kingdom seems to trust them; I don't see any reason for us to do otherwise. And you're right, the Google results do speak for themselves 900 results looks pretty good to me. Neelix (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Being a registered charity in no way implies all materials one puts out are in line with WP:RS. And that's hardly an accurate characterization of the Google results: there are actually 34 unique hits, including such eminently reliable venues as Yahoo Answers, Singular City and Hosted by Who. If one performs a search that is actually meaningful &mdash; say, of major British newspapers, as I did &mdash; then one sees just how insignificant this entity is. - Biruitorul Talk 16:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Delete A newsletter is not a reliable source. Notability and reliable sources are lacking and haven't been discovered. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 02:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 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) 00:08, 4 August 2012 (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.