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 Take to the talk page. Per Dream Focus, the nomination sounds more like a rationale for a merge discussion than a delete. Suggest this be a proposed merge on the talk page. v/r - TP 01:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Occupied Times of London[edit]

The Occupied Times of London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

no reason for a stand alone article. Occupy London would be a better place for this. Disputed prod noq (talk) 09:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not a notable article. --Cox wasan (talk) 09:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Occupy London. Coverage exists, but this is only notable as an aspect of the larger movement. Yunshui 雲水 11:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Sufficient third party coverage to meet GNG, historically significant and a natural break-out from the Occupy London article.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Yunshui. The Occupy London article is in no way unwieldy or too large to have this info on that page. Ravendrop 15:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Sources exist, but merge is a better choice. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. It's not impossible that this paper will have a life outside of this occupation, but it'll take far far longer than a week for that to be the case. The Occupy London article is still quite short - we can consider splitting off a section if and when the article is long enough to warrant this. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because the existing sources seem to establish the notability of the publication. It doesn't make sense to devote more than a sentence or two in Occupy London but the article contains good information. WP:NOTPAPER. Dualus (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why doesn't it make sense to devote more than two sentences in Occupy London? It's normal for articles to have sections or sub-sections on associated topics, whether or not the topic is notable enough for its own article. The merged content from Death of Richard Mannington Bowes for instance, is 13 sentences long. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Why not just tag it for a merge discussion, and have that discussion on the talk page? You aren't asking for a deletion here, so sending it to "articles for deletion" is a waste of time. Dream Focus 10:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Moving comment below from talk page:)

KEEP The Occupied Times of London is a significant publication which is independent of Occupy London. The publication of the paper has created great interest in the media and even the Museum of London requested a copy because of the historical significance. It is now in it's 3rd issue and has been printed as a broadsheet since issue 2. To delete or merge this article would be wrong as it clearly refers to an important historical event. If you need it to be edited in any way please let me know. Thank you. Mallorcasaint (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If you can show where there has been great interest in the media, that might change the outcome of the debate. Bear in mind, however, it is extremely rare for a publication to be considered notable after three issues. It's not just the depth of coverage that is considered, it is the duration, and it is simply too early to know if this paper will continue to get attention in the months or years to come. If and when the Occupied Times meets notability standards it can have a paper, but we don't have articles simply because someone reckons it will be notable later. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per reliable sources:
  

• "‘Occupy’ London showdown at St. Paul’s Cathedral." The Washington Post.
• "Occupy London: The First Edition Of The Occupied Times Hits The Presses." The Huffington Post (United Kingdom).
• "St Paul's protesters publish newspaper." Press Gazette.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the ones which were already in the article of course...Rangoon11 (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sufficient reliable sources to meet GNG. CallawayRox (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The problem with the sources is the moment is that two of them are only incidental mentions in articles about the occupation in general. This leaves three articles in sources that do qualify as reliable, but the GNG says that the number of sources varies, and that lack of multiple sources suggests that the article may be more suitable for inclusion on a broader topic. My opinion is that three sources over such a short period of time is too close to WP:NOTNEWS. If articles like that continue appearing over a sustained length of time, then I'd agree it's enough for a stand-alone article, but for now, Occupy London looks like the best place. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:41, 9 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.