Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postal codes in Portugal


 * 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 delete. Those arguing to keep have primarily made the accurate point that this is far from the only list of postal codes in a country, and that it might be better to discuss them as a group. That's a valid viewpoint, and it may well be worth having that discussion via an RfC.

However, basically no attempts have even been made to counter those advocating "delete", who identify clear problems this article has: it's likely out of date, and while technically it's likely to be verifiable once updated, it's very difficult to source to anything other than primary sources. These add up to a serious concern regarding WP:NOTDIR. It is hard to argue anything other than this being an aggregation of primary-source material at best, falling foul of several aspects of "What Wikipedia is not."

This closure should not be taken as a firm precedent to start aggressively deleting other members of Category:Lists of postal codes, but it very much may reflect some significant policy problems with those lists, and further discussion to solve this one way or another is very much encouraged. ~ mazca  talk 00:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

List of postal codes in Portugal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a repository for data as per WP:RAWDATA - not encyclopaedic content Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

*Keep: Agreeing with other keep supporters. In fact this is not an AfD candidate for me. There is a consent needed to conclude whether this is WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC or not. - The9Man  &#124; (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC) After going through various policies I tend to agree with WP:NOTDIR. Also in such case there are many other articles need to be removed from the mainsapace. - The9Man  ( Talk ) 06:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFF aside, if this article is unencyclopedic, then so is most of Category:Lists of postal codes. Pburka (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: the problem is that this list is too large to be upmerged into the main article Postal codes in Portugal so must exist in its own right. Upmerging would be a silly decision. If this is to be deleted then so must all of the other entries in Category:Lists of postal codes as mentioned by, then please nominate them all and not single out just one from a series that have been worked on for more than 15 years. ww2censor (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed there's no reason Portugal should be singled out. But I'd recommend against a mass nomination with no prior discussion outside this forum. Any time we're dealing with a lot of content that has been around a long time and isn't clearly invalid, it really should be discussed more openly (and open-ended) than in a binary "keep/delete" process with a seven-day time limit. Especially keeping in mind WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , postdlf, ww2censor, Pburka: I have no reason to single out this article, other than the fact that it’s tagged as part of a backlog I’m working on. As you will know, the fact that something has existed for years, or that lots of similar articles also exist, are not appropriate arguments for AfD. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Good thing no one made those arguments. Incidentally, WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:VAGUEWAVEs are not considered valid arguments either. postdlf (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: as expressed by other editors, this page is one of many regarding postal codes, and is too large to be merged into the main article. If it is to be deleted, it should be as part of a consensus as to whether such articles in general meet the criteria for notability. --RaviC (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete unencyclopedic content that fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTN. Keep voters haven't addressed this core objection. OTHERSTUFF should also be deleted, but that doesn't have a bearing on the current discussion. buidhe 21:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per WP:NOTDIR WP:NOTWHITE. We don't need a comprehensive list of every single postcode in the country that can already be easily accessed by a single link. All we need is a topic on postal codes with a few examples, of which can already be found under Postal codes in Portugal. Ajf773 (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 05:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is a classic example of WP:NOTDIR. 173.79.47.227 (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The WP:NOTDIR concerns don't seem to have been addressed by keep voters.
 * Keep. As noted, this is one example of a bigger thing, and it would be better to have an RFC considering the bigger thing, involving editors who may improve matters rather than simply delete it all.  On one level, the content is obviously valid for the main article about postal codes in Portugal, and it is a valid editorial decision to split it out for length/editorial reasons.  Also, there is no way this should be outright deleted, because redirecting to (or merging back into) the main article is an obviously valid wp:ATD alternative to deletion. --Doncram (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as a prototypical example WP:NOTDIR. It's unsourced, and almost certain that any possible sources would be WP:PRIMARY.  -- RoySmith (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Aside from WP:NOTDIR and the like, this list has no sources, is potentially out-of-date, and at over 4000 entries (many for several places that share a postal code) is wholly WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It may set a precedent for the rest of Category:Lists of postal codes. –LaundryPizza<b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 09:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete a good example of WP:NOT Lightburst (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.