Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angélica Lozano Correa


 * 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. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC) 
 * 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. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Angélica Lozano Correa

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is more than a month old and yet has multiple issues 1. No biographical information 2. Does not meet the layout requirements 3. Is not adequately referenced.

So please delete Wikishagnik (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't understand issues 1 and 2. The article does have biographical information, and I don't know what the layout requirements are, but the layout of this article looks perfectly normal to me. On the other hand, the article does need better referencing, so I would recommend that that issue be the one focused on in this AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep None of the deletion reasons given seems valid. 1. There is biographical information: birthplace, date, education career. 2. The layout is just what it ought to be for a stub article. 3. It is indeed not fully referenced to third party sources, but the criterion is unreferenceable, not unreferenced. Furthermore, the idea that articles need to be completed in the first month is against policy. There is no deadline. (As for the merits of the article, recent precedent is that members of the city council of major cities are notable, and Bogota qualifies. there is pretty sure to be references for the GNG, also.)  DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable for her position per precedent on councilmembers of major cities being notable, probably notable per coverage in reliable sources, nom hasn't provided anything policy-based. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep notability is established - seems to be a case of WP:SOFIXIT issues StarM 17:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 5 February 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.
 * 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.