Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonia (United States)

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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colonia (United States)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this page is woefully lacking, and appears to have been that way for quite a while. It's not helpful, and should be seriously edited or deleted. 98.207.129.65 (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 31. Snotbot t • c » 13:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a notable topic, subject of extensive scholarship and public policy (random examples from Google: [1][2][3][4][5][6]), and the article has cites already. If the article needs improvement, that's true of most of the articles on Wikipedia. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is it not required that AfD nominations be made by registered users? Procedurally close this, if so.. Carrite (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. The barrier to unregistered editors nominating an article for deletion here is a technical one, they cannot create a discussion page, but a registered editor can do that on their behalf. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - In addition to my query above, this nomination presents no valid rationale for deletion. Carrite (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — per Arxiloxos. This is a notable concept and rich enough to support an encyclopedia article. Since Arxiloxos gave a few random examples from google books, I'll give a few from scholar: [7] [8] [9].— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 07:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep – AFD is not clean-up. Per WP:NRVE, topic notability is about the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, and not based upon whether or not sources are present in articles. See also WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - For the above reasons. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2012 (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.