Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Experimental post office


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Experimental post office

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I'm not sure whether this counts as a WP:Neologism or just as an unnotable concept, but in any case, this appears to be something that does not pass the GNG. This whole idea seems to have been a completely local phenomenon, as the only reference I can find that talks about this is in a college paper. This phrase/concept does not seem to have gained any widespread use. Rorshacma (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note I forgot to mention that while the phrase "Experimental Post Office" does get hits during searches, none of these are referring to this concept, but rather are news releases talking about things like physical post office that have an experimental quality in their construction, or making use of an experimental new sorting machine. Rorshacma (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. This article is about a specific organization called the Experimental Post Office (probably not notable per WP:ORG) which is being mistakenly portrayed as a generic type. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This isn't even an organization, but a group of people at a college who have an informal and experimental way of delivering messages. It hasn't received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG). First Light (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just a nonnotable fun project of a few students at a small Midwestern college. The only source is their college newspaper. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not really finding any outside coverage or reason to believe this meets WP:GNG Ducknish (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agreed with WP:GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:02, 25 July 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.