Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Boston Occupier


 * 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 Occupy Boston. SarahStierch (talk) 06:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The Boston Occupier

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Although there are some news hits for this from reliable sources there is nothing that indicates there has been significant coverage of this "newspaper" that only published one edition. Fails WP:GNG MisterUnit (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to Occupy Boston. There's not enough coverage of this publication for it to have its own article at this time. I found four sources that covered the paper when it first launched (most of which are by the same paper and person). The most recent thing I could find was from January. There's no depth of coverage here to merit an article to itself. However, I do think that this would be worth having a section on the Occupy Boston page with this title being a redirect to that article. The OB page needs fleshing out anyway, so I think that this would be a good alternative to outright deletion.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Everything has been transferred to the OB page. All that's left is to redirect now. This is notable enough for a mention on OB, but not for its own page.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. However, merge to Occupy Boston is also acceptable. Article is much improved since this AfD was started. This is now an alternative newspaper that has published 9 issues in print and also publishes online. It's had nontrivial coverage in other news media. There appears to be enough here for a stand-alone article, and the topic (e.g., newspaper and Kickstarter project) is sufficiently distinct from the rest of the Occupy Boston article to make a separate article seem reasonable. --Orlady (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My issue is that most of the coverage of this paper has been primary or through non-reliable sources. There was some coverage from local newspaper/blogs that just squeak by as reliable sources, but the newspaper has not been given any in-depth coverage in any mainstream press. The current sources are by three local newspapers/blogs between November and January, two of which are by the same person. There's just no depth of coverage over a longer period of time. Once the initial novelty of the idea of reporting on such a paper wore off nobody has written about it, which was my biggest reason for saying that there's not enough coverage for the paper. All of the current sources only talk about the paper's launch so I'd say it needs more than a handful of blog entries about the paper's beginnings.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect: to Occupy Boston. While such coverage the subject has received is just barely enough, from just barely noteworthy enough sources, to meet the GNG, I question whether there is - or will ever be - enough content to warrant a standalone article.  Everything pertinent has already been merged.   Ravenswing   22:56, 10 August 2012 (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.