Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ClimateHouse


 * 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. There is no clear consensus. It has been over a week since the last comment so I can't justify 3rd relist. This close is without prejudice to a fresh nomination after a reasonable time. Just Chilling (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

ClimateHouse

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete 12-year-old declined prod; tagged with no sources for a decade. WP:BEFORE reveals nothing that would cause this to pass the WP:N guideline. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

*Keep I think the main problem is the English title. There is a lot of potential sources if you search under CasaClima or KlimaHaus, and indeed the de.wiki and it.wiki articles are properly sourced. I’d suggest we rename this article to KlimaHaus (CasaClima) as the English term really doesn’t seem to have taken off so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs) 07:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Striking this earlier !vote as I've accidentally voted twice and made exactly the points just a week apart. There must be some kind of message here...... Mccapra (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Perhaps there are non-English WP articles that have good sources, but assuming they establish notability isn't enough; that's essentially WP:MUSTBESOURCES. The Italian and German articles (just translations of one or the other; not two articles) have a list of books but only one footnote to a useless government document. If an editor has actually read and understood the books at KlimaHaus#Literatur and wants to come here affirm those books meet WP:SIGCOV, fine, accept that AGF. But otherwise we don't really know if these are self-published, have only passing mention, or what. The content iteslf is machine translated copy-paste of a boilerplate mission statement, and so there's nothing worth saving. Bad title, bad content. What is the point? Anyone is free to create KlimaHaus (CasaClima) and start fresh if they have the sources in their hands. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: No proof of notability. SL93 (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The English term is not much used, but the Italian CasaClima and German KlimaHaus are much more common. It might make sense to rename the article CasaClima (KlimaHaus) to reflect this, though users may search under the English term I imagine. Among the sources I found (there’s plenty more) for CasaClima and KlimaHaus are:


 * Erwin Mlecnik (2013). Innovation Development for Highly Energy-efficient Housing: Opportunities and Challenges Related to the Adoption of Passive Houses. IOS Press. pp. 271–. ISBN 978-1-61499-235-6


 * Davide Reina; Silvia Vianello (2011-09-13T00:00:00+02:00). Greenwebeconomics. EGEA spa. ISBN 978-88-238-7300-1


 * Ian Cooper; Martin Symes (22 August 2008). Sustainable Urban Development Volume 4: Changing Professional Practice. Routledge. pp. 259–. ISBN 978-1-134-07172-2


 * Giulio Cainelli; Maria Chiara Cattaneo (2010) Innovare con le imprese. Valtellina. Profili di sviluppo: FrancoAngeli. pp. 144–. ISBN 978-88-568-2620-3

Mccapra (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I should say that I’ve only indicated sources that establish clearly that the ClimateHouse standard is a notable topic. These particular sources don’t describe the technical detail of the standard, but there are others that substantiate the specifics of the article content. Mccapra (talk) 04:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep but Rename. The Italian term "CasaClima" and the German "KlimaHaus" are well established and can be found also in official documents, probably because of the origin in the Bozen–Südtirol region, which is bi-lingual IIRC. The English term appears to be an attempt of a translation in order to widen the scope for an international audience. I have seen both "ClimateHouse" (rarely) as well as "KlimaHouse" (more often - yes, this spelling). So, if it cannot be established that one or both of them are the official terms, we might rename the topic into "CasaClima" and have redirects from the other 3 terms.
 * The English article leaves a lot to be desired (but not relevant in AfD per WP:CONTN and WP:NEXIST), but could be brought into something much more acceptable by translating more contents from either the Italian or the German article.
 * Also, per Mccapra above, I see WP:GNG fulfilled.
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete the Article, it's not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Mixed feelings about this one but I would go with Mccapra. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:49, 14 July 2019 (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.