Talk:The London Economic

References and Citations
There are beginning to be a number of examples where the articles from the "The London Economic" are being used or cited by other more traditional publications:
 * http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/news/16089561.delight-and-disbelief-over-trowbridge-being-number-one-up-and-comer/
 * https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-general-election-2017-labour-how-to-win-next-time-young-voters-a7793046.html
 * https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/northern-ireland-dup-theresa-may-jeremy-hunt-nhs-cuts-secret-whistleblower-austerity-a7810066.html

Got a mention here in the context of the canary, Novaramedia which are similar publications.
 * https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/18/a-question-for-a-dystopian-age-what-counts-as-fake-news

Unfortunately http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/news/16089561.delight-and-disbelief-over-trowbridge-being-number-one-up-and-comer/ while obvious won't count for notability.

Google Scholar has picked up some things: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 00:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10606-017-9275-z
 * https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-72086-9_7 - 1980–The Present: The Sorrow of Meat - refs a TLE article.
 * https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/eco.2016.0042

Move to Main Article Space
There's a 4-8 week queue for AfC and I think I've refocused this article sufficient for mainspace. Ideal world … and time .. and focus... I don't have. I came across the subject when seeking refs for another article and thought it might be worthy of an article … then I found one adrift in draft. OK WP:BOLD, going mainspace…Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC) It had an AfC decline by submission by an IP user but that was more corporation focused than media publisher focused there I'll be clearing the AfC stuff but its visible on versions prior to my edits.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Sniped
@: Please define sniped, and please provide evidence on the article for was. Whichever way this goes this article is probably going to need a tag such as POV ... or perhaps Template:Disputed. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * first of all, I’m not at your will. Don’t make demands of people when you can’t even make a cogent or coherent statement. Second I already provided an explanation, I’m not an admin and I wasn’t even the original requester. Don’t ping me again about this. Praxidicae (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

TLE as a source on Wikipedia
Hi I've tried to use The London Economic as a source and it is labelled as spam, though is verifiable enough to have a wiki page. I found this bot report but I cannot see anything that states why the source is spam or unusable. Does anyone have anymore info on this? Jonjonjohny (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@: The key blacklisting discussion was at. My personal view was that was an incredibly poor quality discussion with several issues including the bundling and some serious allegations made about "Jess Young" being "fake" and in itself was insufficient to blacklisted TLE. The bundling also means it is difficult to locate the discussion as you may have found. However if one looks at articles such as I would have some concerns as to why "SEO Company" is being linked through to an SEO marketing company website: I am therefore minded it is difficult to argue against the blacklisting ... I see a sort of right result wrong means. And it may of been that at one stage the issues did not exist for TLE; but its apparent at one point good reputation may indeed have caused it to become a target for SEO marketers, which perhaps is unfortunate. In term of my reversions at the article lede TLE is a currently functioning website so the description should begin The London Economic is XXX whateve rXXX is .... It may not longer be that digital newspaper is inappropriate due to hidden advertising in articles; alternative media outlet might or might not work. Whether or not TLE is blacklisted is not in itself a reason for article removal; wikipedia has articles on the good, the bad and the ugly on all sorts of subjects. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see you've continued to edit war, Djm, including adding a total nonsense lead. Care to fix it? CUPIDICAE💕  23:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @: Given your almost certain association with the subject of the article to you have any comments on the the attempt to place "was" on the lead of this article, the blacklisting by wikipedia, and why the article by "Jess Young" on 13 June 2019 "Should you hire an SEO Agency or an SEO Freelancer?" contains a promotional link? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * London economic.jpg

Lead-template I put on article
I find the current lead a bit weird, I expect the WP:LEAD to tell me if this is a blog/newspaper/webportal or whatever. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)