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. Owen× ☎ 21:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Graves Greene Philatelic Research Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Article is completely unsourced and subject does not seem to be notable. Quick Google News skim shows only two vague news articles about this Foundation [1] [2]. GoldRomean (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - written at a time when sources were helpful but not always neccesary. No evidence of notability in the current climate. Fails WP:GNG.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please assess recent changes to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"subject does not seem to be notable...." Except to the worldwide community of those who collect, study, and research postal history and postage stamps. 2601:282:1C00:8A10:9146:9250:A151:B8D9 (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regretably that is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Notability has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia and that is the criteria that must be met. Popularity with philatelists is of interest, but does not contribute to notability unless this particular subject is discussed in multiple independent and reliable sources.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Canadian auction house Sparks calls Greene "the pre-eminent expert committee for the stamps of Canada and British North America." That's probably not a reliable source, but it ought to be a hint that there's something there. Indeed, there's coverage in philatelic periodicals. Appropriately for a Canada-centric topic, Canada Stamp News has spent a lot of time talking about Greene: [3][4][5][6][7] and so forth. I suspect a great deal of discussion in Linn's and Gibbon Stamp Monthly, but both of them have paywalled archives (and the former's archive is a sad "archive", going back to ~2008 for a publication that debuted in 1928!). Digitization rates for reference material in this field are terrible; a lot of the significant coverage here is going to be in print. Lubal (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - I'm a bit concerned that the Canada Stamp News and Linn's sources identified by Lubal and Eastmain here or in the article lack bylines and that the publications don't appear to publish mastheads, but I'm swayed by Lubal's arguments to the effect of WP:NEXIST. Searching on Google Books, there appear to be many matches in philately publications (both academic and otherwise), although I wasn't able to access any that clearly have significant coverage. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:07, 28 May 2024 (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.