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)reply
*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)reply
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)reply
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:
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)reply
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.
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.
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)reply
*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)reply
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)reply
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:
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)reply
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.
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.