Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poble Espanyol

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poble Espanyol

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

advertising The Banner talk 22:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Said to be the fourth most popular tourist attraction in Barcelona,[1] discussed in numerous academic and popular books. Examples: [2][3][4][5] Article doesn't seem to be especially more promotional than many others about tourist attractions, and can be improved by the usual editorial process.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. I would have thought that, having taken part in so many deletion discussions, the nominator would be aware of WP:BEFORE by now. How many such timewasting nominations are required before action is taken to prevent them? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you even look at the article? The Banner talk 08:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. It has plenty of factual non-promotional content, so the promotional bits can simply be removed leaving an acceptable article on a clearly notable topic. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then good luck with editing The Banner talk 18:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC) But my experience is that nobody will do anything.[reply]
      - I don't operate an edit-on demand service. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve as I'm happening to see this article, it seems to be an actual landmark and there's certainly enough to suggest improving may be best including with some familiar attention. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy edit. Quite notable per available sources about the topic. The one-word "advertising" rationale for deletion is ambiguous and subjective; the entire article does not read as an advertisement. A few sections could use some copy editing to address promotional tone, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Strange, you never seem to find advertising. The Banner talk 20:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - < yawn > While you spend time typing out WP:ADHOM statements that have nothing to do with the topic, I've been improving the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You simply cannot be nominating articles like this for deletion on subjects that are obviously notable and exist on SIXTEEN other language wikipedias. Tag it as advertising if you want, but there is no end date for the project. It may not get fixed for 250 years, and that's ok, as long as its notable. (Also, hello to editors of 2266 reading this edit!) --Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, primarily per citations provided by Arxiloxos, the subject appears to meet guidelines for general notability. There issues with advertising and unsourced content may be dealt with through the normal editing process. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2016 (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.