Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Porto

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 merge to Porto. Should an article under this title exist? Likely, yes. But this is so duplicative that it doesn’t serve the reader. Feel free to spin it out again when it resembles ptwiki’s coverage. Courcelles (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of Porto[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Already covered in the Porto article Chidgk1 (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Timeline of Porto The Bibliography section links directly there anyway. Preferably that article should be merged with this one. Felix Croc (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or reverse merge to Porto#history. I suspect that the account in that article is fuller. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two different merge targets were suggested, which one would be more appropriate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reduce the Porto article's history section to summary style. Furius (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Who would benefit from that? The History section of the Porto article is not excessively long, comparable with the History sections of similar articles. Delete. Athel cb (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As Eastmain indicates below, the history of Porto is well and truly detailed enough to sustain a longer article. Compare History of London, History of Berlin. At the moment, the history section on Porto is irregular, going into detail at some points (Aula de Náutica and the stock exchange) and totally omitting information at others (events since 1919). Converting to summary style would allow a more even level of coverage of the whole history on the Porto article, without losing details more suitable for a stand alone article. Furius (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The corresponding article in the Portuguese Wikipedia at pt:História_do_Porto has a lot of references and a list of books about the history of Porto. I think the city has enough history to warrant a separate article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looked at this AfD earlier and wasn't sure what to suggest, but now that Eastmain has directed attention to the Portuguese Wikipedia article I think there's likely more than enough to warrant a separate article on Porto's history. It is after all Portugal's second city. The article obviously needs referencing; without such I don't see what bits can be merged. Rupples (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is heavily duplicative of Porto#History to the point that this is a disservice to the reader, who would be confused reading the main article and then following the "main article" link and finding this that's largely the same content and paragraph structure with nothing more. A fuller article here can absolutely be written and I welcome such expansion from ptwiki, but with such poor summary style there should not be this sort of redundancy at this time – it should only be kept if someone's actually willing to do so. Reywas92^Talk 16:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As per Reywas92. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:23, 15 April 2023 (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.