Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laboratories of Democracy
is not an issue, and not just because the term is not new, as noted above.  #Articles on neologisms supports article deletion only when the article is a dicdef, not applicable here, or if the article is unverifiable.  Note that "not currently referenced" is not the same as "unverifiable," and not a valid deletion rationale; the burden is on delete !voters to demonstrate that it will not be possible for the article topic to satisfy .  That's not a problem here, because sufficient reliable source coverage exists (see below).  Similarly, , #ESSAY, and  are all invalid reasons for article deletion unless it can be demonstrated that these problems are unresolvable by ordinary article editing (, ).  If the subject is notable, and none of the material is worth salvaging, the solution is to stub the article and allow other editors to start over.  Thus, this comes down to a simple debate over notability.  The subject has multiple, non-trivial reliable source coverage, particularly including reliable sources which are about the concept, rather than merely using it in passing (examples: http://books.google.com/books?id=25WwAAAAIAAJ&sitesec=reviews http://www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/statecon/publications/lab.pdf, plus a great deal of material in the various google searches I haven't gone through, due to time constraints).  Thus the subject satisfies the |GNG and is presumed notable; the fact that such sources are not currently references in the article is irrelevant
— User:Baileypalblue, 15:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NEOLOGISM||WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:NOT||WP:NPOV||WP:ATD||WP:BEFORE||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary)