Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Army Reserve Center, Rio Vista

:{{la|United States Army Reserve Center, Rio Vista}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/United_States_Army_Reserve_Center,_Rio_Vista Stats])

:({{Find sources|United States Army Reserve Center, Rio Vista}})

Appears to be a minor US Army base that has since closed, one or two sources but I don't believe there is lasting notability Gbawden (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep I am going to have to argue that it wasn't a minor installation, as it [http://www.dailyrepublic.com/news/riovista/rio-vista-army-base-to-shed-its-name-image/ was used from 1911 to 1995], and closed under BRAC. That's an incredibly long time for anything to be operational, especially given the [http://rivernewsherald.org/history_4-20-2011.html amount] [http://rivernewsherald.org/history_4-27-2011.html of] [http://rivernewsherald.org/history_5-4-2011.html documentation] based in those three pages about the amount of activity that went on there. There are articles on here about Civil War camps that have much less documentation on them, but they are kept because they were training grounds during this time. Anyways, going back to this, it wasn't a minor installation, and there is enough coverage out there that shows that it isn't. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep  Delete  WP:Notability of topics is not temporary, WP:NTEMP; but article fails WP:V.  Re-create when there is an editor who wants to write the article with sourcing.  Redirects are welcome, too.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

::Changing to keep, with a congrats to MelanieN for adding souring to the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

---

• Keep I have begun the process of expanding and referencing this into a proper article. The subject is clearly notable. --MelanieN (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

::OK, there. It now has seven references and I think it is at least Start class (formerly an unreferenced stub). --MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2014 (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.