Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Angeles Times in the 21st century


 * 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 Los Angeles Times. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07  ( T ) 20:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times in the 21st century

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not a notable subject in and of itself. Should we have Los Angeles Times in the 20th and 19th century as well? Should be deleted. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC) *Keep as is. Level of detail here is encyclopedic considering the massive changes in newspapering during the early 21st century, and this article can easily be kept up to date by anybody who is interested in doing so and who has access to good sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks like it was split reasonably from the parent article because of its size per WP:SPLIT. Needs to be cleaned up and could be sourced better but looking at the articles for other newspapers it seems to be a reasonable level of detail. If parts of it can't be sourced they should be removed. This is AfD though, not WP:CLEAN --Savonneux (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment It would be more normal to split the entire History of the Los Angeles Times to a separate article, but this isn't a terrible solution. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Remerge.' A truly absurd split if there ever was one, especially considering that most of its history is in the 20th century. Even a separation of "History" would seem unnecessary--the articles is not all that large in the first place. (65K if combined)  DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge back into Los Angeles Times; unnecessary, non-notable split article. I suspect, however, that a split and expansion of the history of the paper could be acceptable. --torri2(talk/contribs) 20:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge back. I have no objection now to its going back where it came from, as long as we make sure it doesn't overwhelm the parent article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge into a History of the Los Angeles Times article, consisting of an expansion of the History section of Los Angeles Times and this article in its current form. It is clear that there is enough here to warrant a split should the older history be expanded, and I'm interested in assisting with such an expansion. Also, simply plopping this back into the main article would lend undue weight to recent events. ~ RobTalk 12:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge back or, as a second choice, into History per Rob just above. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.