Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sevilla Public Library

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. Per additions by Aymatth2 and WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sevilla Public Library[edit]

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

This stub article adds nothing that cannot already be found in Sevilla. Oddbodz (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There has been no activity in the last 2 months, chances are creator does not intend to add content. Veryhuman (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to delete all the inactive stubs? emijrp (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure? I don't see the word "library" in Seville. emijrp (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this by any chance the Biblioteca del Archivo Municipal de Sevilla? --Oakshade (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. emijrp (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More likely the Biblioteca Provincial de Sevilla. Some similar libraries have a page on the Spanish Wikipedia (see for example es:Biblioteca Pública del Estado (Córdoba), complete with redirect from es:Biblioteca Provincial de Córdoba), but this one doesn't. Andrew Dalby 21:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for asking but how can something established in 1959 have contained a figure in the 18th-19th centuries when it apparently didn't exist??♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

18th-19th centuries books. emijrp (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been improved by Aymatth2. Thanks. emijrp (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep certainly keep as improved. The original delete argument was never correct, even unimproved, whether it had been improved in the past 3 months is obvious irrelevant to whether it will be improved in the future. Excellent example of this principle, that stubs are acceptable because they lead to fuller articles DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It should have been obvious that the subject was notable before the article was nominated. A link was provided in the stub and a search would have shown many sources. I do not buy the argument that this proves stubs are good. This proves that the combination of a stub that gives no useful information and a nominator who does no research is to waste a lot of time in an AfD debate. "The Sevilla Public Library is a public library located in Sevilla, Spain". Indeed. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The present version of the article contains ample evidence of notability.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the excellent expansion by Aymatth2.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:39, 10 November 2011 (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.