Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archivo Diseño y Arquitectura

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. Overall consensus is for article retention. Of note is that a great deal of promotional content was removed from the article after this was nominated for deletion (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archivo Diseño y Arquitectura[edit]

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

Moved from Draft space, reads like a promotional piece for the company, fails WP:NOTPROMOTION JMHamo (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issues concerning this entry have been addressed through proper edits and thus I recommend to KEEP the entry. Mdiaztuf (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Archivo Diseño y Arquitectura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is not a company, but a cultural non-profit. The purpose of the entry is informational, not promotional. Mdiaztuf (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)— Mdiaztuf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. By searching online, I've found two reliable sources that significantly cover this location. With those it should meet the notability guideline. I'll add those sources in later. Appable (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and draft and userfy if needed until better improvement can be made. Pinging Vrac (como estamos?) SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the metropolismag source that's cited is good, plus a milenio article, other stuff in English (which in and of itself is an indication of notability; it's not just a locally-known entity). Pues estamos vivos, ya es mucho... Vrac (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously sufficiently notable.--Ipigott (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Issues have been addressed and the entry has valuable information on a notable cultural institution.Marioballe (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)— Marioballe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough and reliable sources, passes notability guideline. Wikienglish123 (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)User has been blocked as an abusive sockpuppet. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:42, 5 November 2015 (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.