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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Banks Irk (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of Oxford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This stub is far less detailed less complete and less-well sourced than is the far more fulsome main Oxford#History article. Any information or sources in this article not currently in the main article could easily be merged. I propose that this article be merged and redirected into that article. 17:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Banks Irk (talk)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for the message Banks Ire. Personally, I'd assume that the history of one of the most famous towns in western Europe would be pretty close to automatic notability (the Victoria County History's History of Oxford currently comes in at eighteen volumes alone  :) Clearly the problem is not a lack of sourcing on the subject, but a lack of willingness to expand this article to a degree concomitant with its significance. Perhaps most Wikipedians are a bunch of Cambridge pinkos?!  ;) I might tentatively suggest merging some of the main article into this one. but I admit that's not the question being asked. Cheers, SN54129 18:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Merge - I can't see that deletion would be appropriate here. Banks Irk, I recommend you either start a merge proposal (WP:MERGEPROP) or just do the merge yourself and see if anyone objects. Suriname0 (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • … or take one of the many sources in hand and write more of the history. It won't be the longest "a couple of days" in Wikipedia's history for an article to get expanded. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, the summer of 2007. I remember it well. Can't *quite* remember why I never came back to work on the article, though! I think given this has been more or less gathering dust since then, probably best to just redirect to the main article and leave the redirect in place in case anyone wants to try breaking it out again in future. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and repurpose -- The criticism that Oxford#History is fuller is entirely valid. Yet, this article is fulfilling a useful but different purpose: History of Oxford related articles and bibliography. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could definitely support the suggestion above that, instead of merging this article into the Oxford#History subsection, merge that subsection into this article. That was an option that I considered proposing when I first posted this. In fact, one option might literally involve switching the content of the two articles. Use this material in the main Oxford article, and take the material from that article and move it here. That way there would be relatively short content in the main article with a link to this one, and then this one would have a much more complete discussion of the subject matter as the main "history" article. Thoughts? Banks Irk (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to see what that looked like, I swapped the material around (potential new Oxford#History is [1], and conversely, new History of Oxford here [2]). obviously a fair bit of tidying, etc, would need to be done, but it gives an indication of the relative size of the "new" pages and the amount of material involved. SN54129 16:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That works for me. It looks like a good solution. Banks Irk (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but move information as appropriate. --217.165.244.152 (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep AKA do the switch as per SN54129's edits, with the relevant reference from the Oxford article. Lamona (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Certainly this is a significant enough topic to merit having its own page. I would agree that moving information from the History section of Oxford is the way to go and then that could be cut back (as it is I would say that it takes up too much of the Oxford article so this would be good for both articles). Dunarc (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2022 (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.