Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado da Bahia

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. Had the sources been analyzed and found appropriate would have likely closed as keep but reading this discussion neither side made convincing arguments. J04n(talk page) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado da Bahia

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

No evidence of notability for over 4 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 12:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep it does get a number of hits in Portuguese in gnews. LibStar (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As LibStar says, substantial Portuguese-language coverage at GNews. Also, many GBooks and GScholar references (using "FAPESB" as the search term). It appears to have funded quite a lot of activity; as a state agency it has a high likelihood of notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:34, 20 April 2013 (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.