Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Las Colinas

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep.

• I count 3 keep and 4 delete.
• I did not count the keep vote by User:BigHonky as the user has only contributed to this VfD.
• 2-3 of the delete votes are based on this town being a planned town; however, I am still counting them, hence the "no consensus" result.

--Deathphoenix 22:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Las Colinas

No vote as of yet. Article says this is a planned development, but the first external link goes nowhere, and the second doesn't support the article. Reads like an advertisement, but not really sure what to make of it. Android79 02:07, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not Property.com. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 04:15, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• errr.... Las Colinas is a suburb of Los Angeles. At the very least, if this is going to exist, it needs to be behind a disambiguation page. (del, i think) Avriette 13:25, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I'm frankly not thrilled that every town is counted notable, but this isn't even a town. It doesn't even EXIST yet. Nonnotable to the point of absurdity. --InShaneee 18:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Come back when it exists. Radiant! 11:59, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Las Colinas does exist. I live there. :-) I have edited the page to say that it is a developed area versus a planned development, although I think the original author meant "planned development" not in the sense of future planning, but in the sense of there is a master plan for the whole development, like "planned community". It is a familiar name to anyone in the DFW Metroplex. I would agree with Avriette that it might need to be behind a disambiguation page. I will attempt to find some more useful info to add as well. Dennypayne 05:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, quite notable. "Planned" in the sense of having been centrally planned, rather than having grown organically (quite unusual for Texas, I might add). Includes HQs of quite a few corporations. Most of the delete votes seem to be based on miscomprehension of the sense of the word "planned" here. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:51, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Change vote to Keep given the rewrite and my misunderstanding of the word "planned." Sorry for that, but I didn't have much to go on! :o) Android79 13:39, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep,I am kind of new to Wikipedia, however my uncle was one of the people behind the Las Colinas development when he worked for Faison back in the 60-70's, I would like to update the info on this page. I feel that Las Colinas was a huge failure becuase of the economic situation of the time, yet it was a tremendous idea as well. Please remember too that #1 I live in the zip code of Las Colinas (75039) and Exxon is headquartered here as well [unsigned comment from User:BigHonky ]
  • Go for it! Just remember to maintain NPOV when writing. If Las Colinas is regarded as a failure by many (and you can cite the sources to back it up), then it probably belongs in the article. Android79 03:07, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.