Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Coffee Research

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 no consensus. Disagreement over whether the article fails to meet the notability guidelines, or just meets them. Davewild (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World Coffee Research

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

A 2 sentence stub with no notability. The only sources I found are casual mentions in articles due to the coffee rust situation. Could *possibly* be a merge with Texas A&M University Jcmcc (Talk) 06:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was planning to put this up myself, sources are only passing mentions, and only content being added to the page is promotional copyvios. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a bit [1] The sources don't just mention the organization but actually say something about it. So I think it passes the threshold of the criteria. maclean (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I can find plenty of evidence that this organization is funding scientific research: PLOS [2], BioScience [3], and there are mentions in NYT, etc. [4]. I'm not (yet) seeing full articles about the organization. LaMona (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep: a (probable) very borderline case of WP:ORG. A plethora of sources, however most of them are only passing mentions that fail WP:ORGDEPTH. I cannot find any actual significant coverage; it would probably take some sifting through sources to figure out, but it is likely to be (borderline) notable. I can find 166 sources that mention the subject (minus a dozen or two for sources not independent of the subject) on Google and 40 on HighBeam, and some of them in my first search approach significant coverage, so it is likely to meet WP:ORG, albeit borderline. Esquivalience ^t 02:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 22 May 2015 (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.